Performance audit, Arizona universities' space utilization

State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
ARIZONA
UNIVERSITIES’
SPACE UTILIZATION
October 1997
Report # 97-16
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
October 27, 1997
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Dr. Frank H. Besnette, Executive Director
Arizona Board of Regents
Dr. Lattie Coor, President
Arizona State University
Dr. Clara Lovett, President
Northern Arizona University
Dr. Peter Likins, President
University of Arizona
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Universities’ Space Utilization.
This report is in response to a June 10, 1996, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.
This is the first in a series of reports to be issued on the university system in response to the requirements of A.R.S. §41-2958.
The report addresses ways in which the universities can better manage the existing space on their main campuses.
Specifically, each university can improve the use of classrooms, which currently hold classes, on average, less than 60 percent
of each day. Not only does this use fall below the Board of Regents’ current guidelines regarding utilization of classroom
space, but these guidelines may themselves be set too low to ensure classrooms are adequately used. The Board of Regents
should continue its efforts to develop new classroom utilization standards and hold the universities accountable for increasing
their use of classroom space. Additionally, as the universities take steps to increase classroom use, they should focus on some
of the most expensive rooms, those equipped with instructional technology, which are also underutilized. One way to
improve classroom use would be for the universities to schedule more classes through central scheduling offices and more
fully automate their scheduling function.
As outlined in their response, the universities agree with all of the findings and recommendations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on October 28, 1997.
Sincerely,
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
Enclosure
i
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of space utilization
at Arizona’s universities. This audit was conducted pursuant to a June 10, 1996, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, and is the first in a series of four performance
audits of the universities performed in response to the requirements of A.R.S. §41-2958.
Arizona’s three universities, Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe, Northern Arizona
University (NAU) in Flagstaff, and the University of Arizona (UA) in Tucson, maintain a
total of over 23 million gross square feet of space on their campuses. This includes
classrooms and laboratories, offices, residence halls, athletic facilities, dining halls, and
student recreation centers. Although the universities manage their space differently, they
could all improve the way they use and monitor their facilities.
Universities Need to Improve
Classroom Utilization
(See pages 7 through 13)
Arizona’s universities can improve their use of classroom space. On average, each
university schedules classes in its classrooms less than 60 percent of the day. This
represents average use for all classrooms; the universities use their classrooms significantly
less in the early mornings, late afternoons, and on Friday afternoons. Further, this use
(between 25 and 28 hours per week out of the 50 hours possibly available, Monday
through Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.) falls below the Board of Regents (Board) standard that
recommends classrooms be used 30 hours per week. However, even if the universities met
the Board’s guidelines for classroom use, the guidelines may not ensure classrooms are
adequately used. Some regents and private sector representatives, upon reviewing the
Board’s guidelines, concluded that they should be revised to encourage increased use of
classrooms. Further, stricter guidelines would reduce or eliminate the universities’ need
for additional classroom space.
By using their existing classrooms more often, the universities may be able to serve more
students, convert underutilized classrooms into other types of needed space, or prevent
or delay construction of new classroom space. The universities, in conjunction with private
sector volunteers, are discussing raising the classroom utilization guidelines and
identifying methods to increase classroom use. However, the Board of Regents should
ensure new standards are developed and hold the universities accountable for increasing
their use of classroom space. Further, the Board should consider how the universities are
utilizing space when reviewing their requests for classroom construction.
ii
Utilization of Technology-Enhanced
Classrooms Can Be Improved
(See pages 15 through 19)
Arizona’s universities are taking steps to increase classroom use, but should focus more
on some of the more expensive rooms, those equipped with instructional technology. The
3 universities currently maintain 70 classrooms equipped with at least an instructor
computer, and have plans to build more rooms equipped with computers, laser disc
players, in-class Internet access, and/or sophisticated projection equipment. These
technologies can augment traditional instructional techniques, but classrooms equipped
with these items can cost nearly twice as much per square foot to construct than traditional
classrooms.
Although instructional technology classrooms and laboratories are among the most costly
on campus, both NAU and UA currently use them, on average, fewer than the 30 hours
per week required under the Board of Regents’ classroom utilization guidelines. NAU,
UA, and ASU use their classrooms equipped with at least an instructor’s computer 22, 27,
and 30 hours per week, respectively. Although certain inherent characteristics of the
technology can result in low usage, such as additional time needed to set up equipment,
other factors, such as inefficient scheduling practices, are within the universities’ control.
Each university should take steps to increase the use of these specialized classrooms. In
order to accomplish this, the universities need to first identify all classrooms equipped
with instructional technology. Additionally, the universities should determine this
technology’s effectiveness and the extent to which it is needed on each campus.
Improved Scheduling Processes
Could Enhance Utilization
of Classroom Space
(See pages 21 through 25)
Currently each university schedules classroom use differently. While NAU allows its
academic departments to control all classrooms, UA and ASU schedule the majority of
classrooms through a central scheduling office. However, all three could increase
classroom use by scheduling more classes through central offices. For example, classrooms
scheduled centrally at UA held classes 29 hours per week, compared to only 18 hours per
week of classes in departmentally controlled classrooms. Additionally, centrally scheduling
classrooms makes it easier for academic departments to share needed classrooms, produces more
accurate information for managing space, and provides a central contact point.
To further improve classroom scheduling, the universities should consider more fully
automating their scheduling functions. Universities can use software programs to assign
classes to available classrooms that match instructors’ preferences. These programs allow
universities to increase the efficiency of their scheduling processes by eliminating the need
iii
to manually schedule classes each semester. ASU and NAU are considering whether they
should fully automate their scheduling functions. UA, which already owns an automated
scheduling program, is working to identify ways to more effectively use it.
Universities Should Fully
Implement Best Practices
in Space Management
(See pages 27 through 30)
In addition to increasing classroom utilization, the Arizona Board of Regents and the
universities can further strengthen their space management practices, which ensure the
efficient use of university facilities. First, NAU needs to improve its space inventory. In
contrast to ASU and UA, NAU does not conduct regular reviews of all of its inventory
data, and its inventory records do not reflect the departments assigned to use each room.
Second, the Board of Regents and the universities should review and possibly revise the
State’s guidelines used to identify how much space each university needs for offices,
research labs, and libraries. These guidelines, which establish, for example, that faculty
should have 140 square feet of office space, may overestimate space shortages. Finally,
each university should adopt additional space management techniques that help determine
appropriate space allocations. Techniques available include comparing space allocations
by college or department, conducting in-depth space audits of departments, and allocating
space based on productivity factors, which help determine how well space is used.
iv
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
v
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Background............................................................... 1
Finding I: Universities Need to Improve
Classroom Utilization................................................................. 7
Universities Do Not Meet
Classroom Use Guidelines ................................................................................. 7
The Board of Regents’ Guidelines
Need to Be Revised............................................................................................. 9
Universities Should
Improve Classroom Use ..................................................................................... 11
Recommendations............................................................................................... 13
Finding II: Utilization of Technology-Enhanced
Classrooms Can Be Improved .................................................. 15
Instructional Technology
Enhances Classrooms
at Higher Cost...................................................................................................... 15
Instructional Technology
Underused........................................................................................................... 16
Several Factors Contribute
to Low Utilization Rates..................................................................................... 17
Universities Need to Increase
Use of Technology-Enhanced
Classrooms........................................................................................................... 18
Recommendations............................................................................................... 19
vi
Table of Contents (cont’d)
Page
Finding III: Improved Scheduling Processes
Could Enhance Utilization
of Classroom Space................................................................... 21
Classroom Scheduling Process
Differs at Each University.................................................................................. 21
Scheduling More Classes
through Central Offices Will
Increase Classroom Use...................................................................................... 22
Computerized Scheduling Improves
Efficiency and Effectiveness............................................................................... 24
Recommendations............................................................................................... 25
Finding IV: Universities Should Fully
Implement Best Practices
in Space Management................................................................ 27
NAU Needs to Improve
Its Room Inventory Data .................................................................................... 27
Space Guidelines
Should Be Reviewed........................................................................................... 28
Universities Should
Adopt Additional Space
Management Practices........................................................................................ 28
Recommendations............................................................................................... 30
vii
Table of Contents (concl’d)
Page
Tables
Table 1: Arizona’s Public Universities
Space Inventory
Fall 1996................................................................................... 2
Table 2: Arizona’s Public Universities
Classroom Use
Fall 1996................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Arizona’s Public Universities
Analysis of Classroom Space Needs
Fall 1996................................................................................... 11
viii
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of space utilization
at Arizona’s universities. This audit was conducted pursuant to a June 10, 1996, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, and is the first in a series of four performance
audits of the universities performed in response to the requirements of A.R.S. §41-2958.
Arizona’s three universities operate under the governance of the Arizona Board of Regents.
Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe is the largest, with 42,463 students enrolled as
of fall 1996. The University of Arizona (UA) in Tucson had 33,504 students during the
same semester, and Northern Arizona University (NAU), in Flagstaff, had 19,605 students
enrolled. State appropriations to the universities’ main campuses for fiscal year 1997-1998
were over $745.7 million. Of this amount, the Legislature appropriated $314.6 million to
ASU, $305.7 million to UA, and $125.4 million to NAU.
Arizona’s Universities
Support Large Campuses
Arizona’s three universities maintain extensive physical facilities. Their campuses
comprise over 23 million gross square feet of space with an estimated replacement value
of over $3.5 billion.1 This includes classrooms and laboratories, offices for faculty and
administrative staff, residence halls, athletic facilities, dining halls, and student recreation
centers. Table 1 (see page 2), provides information on the total acreage, gross square
footage, and total assignable space (excludes walls, hallways, restrooms, etc.) available at
each university’s main campus and ASU West.
In order to maintain, renovate, and expand their campuses, the universities annually
develop five-year plans detailing proposed capital projects. The Capital Improvement
Plans (CIP) contain information about new construction projects, building renovations, and
infrastructure improvements, as well as cost estimates and funding sources for these
projects. The universities’ 1999-2003 CIPs include projects totaling more than $745 million.
The universities fund their plans through general fund appropriations, bond proceeds,
grant monies, and donations. In 1996, the Legislature approved over $245 million in new
bonding authority for the university system, which will fund numerous capital projects.
The university system last received bonding authority in 1988 and only a small portion of
the authorized bonds remain unissued. Thus, many projects have remained on the five-year
plans as ideas only.
1 The universities determine estimated replacement values using construction cost guidelines developed for
the Board of Regents by a private consultant.
2
Table 1
Arizona’s Public Universities 1
Space Inventory
Fall 1996
ASU ASU
West
NAU UA 2
Acreage 763 300 738 671
Gross square footage 8,032,935 600,870 4,193,786 8,294,482
Net assignable space 3
Classrooms 352,813 54,581 161,827 267,919
Classroom laboratories 438,713 11,778 150,011 365,621
Research laboratories 484,045 12,794 76,901 673,324
Libraries 300,795 50,612 153,546 342,355
Offices 1,178,949 120,587 386,505 1,181,239
Residence halls 1,080,025 0 964,866 672,809
Other 4 1,316,088 66,074 901,022 1,110,156
Total assignable space 5,151,428 316,426 2,794,678 4,613,423
1 Main campuses only.
2 Does not include UA’s College of Medicine.
3 Refers to all space that can be used for instruction and other purposes. It does not include space such as walls,
hallways, and restrooms.
4 Includes athletic areas, health care facilities, lounges, recreation facilities, and other space that does not fit into
any of the other categories.
Source: Arizona Board of Regents’ 1997 Annual Space Inventory and Utilization Report and 1996 Building
Inventory Report.
Universities’ Space
Subject to an External Review
In recent months, the issue of space management has come under greater scrutiny. In 1996,
both the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) and the Office of Management and
3
Budget (OMB) staffs expressed concerns with the universities’ plans to spend monies
generated by the Board of Regents’ new bonding authority. Both offices requested
additional information, including the current utilization of university facilities, in order
to recommend approval of the plans.
In October 1996, the Arizona Board of Regents requested a private sector review of the
universities’ capital development process. The Committee for External Review of
University Capital Assets (Committee) was subsequently formed. At the Board’s request,
the Committee toured each campus and reviewed several topics related to the universities’
capital assets, including bonding and the universities’ debt capacity, the capital
development process, future enrollment growth projections, deferred maintenance, and
the use of existing university space.
After three months of study, the Committee presented 28 recommendations to the Board
of Regents. According to the Committee, implementing these recommendations will
require the commitment of substantial Board and university resources. For example, the
Committee recommended that the Board:
n Prioritize major capital projects on a system-wide level rather than by each campus;
n Spend more time reviewing proposed construction and renovation projects prior to
granting project initiation approval;
n In conjunction with OMB and JLBC staff, review the current building renewal formula;
and
n Hire an outside consulting firm to review deferred maintenance needs at each
university.
In addition to these areas, the committee also expressed concerns with the use of existing
university facilities. Specifically, the Committee focused on improving the utilization of
classrooms, recommending a follow-up review in order to identify methods to increase
classroom use.
Since receiving the Committee’s report, the Board has taken steps to implement many of
the Committee’s recommendations. For example, the Board submitted a revised, more
comprehensive plan for the use of bond monies, required additional information from the
universities in their Capital Improvement Plans, and hired a consultant to review deferred
maintenance needs. Regarding the utilization of space, the Board established a follow-up
work group, including four members of the Committee, to review the Board’s guidelines
for the use of space and identify ways to increase classroom use.
4
Space Management
Differs at Each University
Space management plays an important role at a university, helping to ensure that all
capital assets are effectively and efficiently used. The substantial resources that have been
invested in university facilities, and campus size and complexity, make space management
a particularly important facet of university management. Each university currently
manages the use and allocation of its capital assets differently.
n At ASU, the seven full-time equivalent staff in the Academic Facilities unit provide
oversight for the university’s space. The unit’s responsibilities include scheduling
classes into classrooms each semester and preparing classroom utilization reports,
maintaining an inventory of all rooms on campus, and reviewing departments’
requests for additional space.
n At NAU, one employee dedicates half her time to space management functions.
Previously, NAU maintained a space management department with four full-time staff.
However, the university reduced this function in 1993 in order to streamline its
administrative structure. Currently, NAU’s activities are limited to maintaining records
regarding current space, and providing minimal assistance to departments requesting
space. At NAU, academic departments schedule their classes into classrooms allocated
specifically for their use.
n At UA, the 10-person Office of Space Management performs certain space management
functions. This group maintains an inventory of current space and prepares utilization
and space management reports. The unit also performs other duties, including the
university’s acquisition, sales, and leasing functions. In addition to this unit, the
University also uses a Space Committee, comprised of faculty and administrators,
which performs several functions, including assigning space to departments and
assisting departments in better managing their existing space. Four staff within the
Registrar’s office schedule classes into classrooms at UA.
Scope and Methodology
This audit focuses on how the universities can better manage the existing space on their
main campuses. Aspects of space management reviewed include the universities’ efforts
to monitor allocations of space to individual departments, classroom scheduling practices,
and the extent to which classroom space is used. Further, the audit team reviewed in more
depth how much the universities are using classrooms equipped with instructional
technology.
ASU West and ASU East were not included in this audit due to time and resource
constraints, which were compounded by the distinct differences in the use and
5
management of space at these facilities versus the main campuses. These campuses will
be reviewed in other upcoming performance audits of the universities.
Several methods were used to address the issues in this audit, including:
n Interviewing faculty, staff, and administrators at all three universities and the Arizona
Board of Regents regarding classroom scheduling and space management practices and
the use of instructional technology in classrooms;
n Analyzing space utilization reports and figures that the Board of Regents and the
universities provided and conducting an analysis of classrooms equipped with
instructional technology;
n Conducting site visits to verify the presence and use of instructional technology
equipment in selected classrooms, and to perform limited test work on inventory
records;
n Attending 8 meetings of the Committee for External Review of University Assets and
the follow-up Work Group on Space Utilization; and
n Interviewing officials from 12 other universities to document their classroom
scheduling and space management practices.1
This report presents findings and recommendations in four areas regarding the need for
Arizona’s universities to:
n Increase the utilization of existing classroom space and recommend revisions to the
Board of Regents’ current classroom utilization guidelines;
n Increase the utilization of classrooms equipped with instructional technology;
n Improve their classroom scheduling functions through increased centralization and
automation; and
n Expand their current space management efforts by improving their space data,
reviewing existing space guidelines, and implementing additional space management
1 The following universities were contacted: University of California at Berkeley and Los Angeles, University
of Florida at Gainesville, University of Wisconsin at Madison, University of Texas at Austin, Texas A & M
University, University of Washington, California State University at Fresno, Bowling Green State
University, Ohio University at Athens, George Mason University, and Old Dominion University. Selection
criteria included size, Carnegie classification, land grant history, peer status, and Arizona universities’
recommendations.
6
practices.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the administration, staff, and faculty
at ASU, NAU, UA, and the Arizona Board of Regents, and the Committee for External
Review of Capital Assets for their cooperation and assistance throughout the audit.
7
FINDING I
UNIVERSITIES NEED TO IMPROVE
CLASSROOM UTILIZATION
Arizona’s universities should take steps to increase the use of their existing classroom
space. On average, each university schedules classes in their classrooms less than 60
percent of the day, and classrooms are used significantly less during evening hours.
Further, no university meets the State’s guidelines for classroom use, but even if they did,
these guidelines may not ensure classrooms are adequately used. By adopting stricter
guidelines and increasing classroom use, the universities can serve more students, convert
ineffective classrooms to other needed uses, or possibly avoid construction of classroom
space.
Universities Do Not Meet
Classroom Use Guidelines
Arizona’s universities can improve their use of classroom space. Each university does not
meet the Board of Regents’ (Board) guidelines for the number of classes that should be
scheduled in rooms and the percentage of seats that should be occupied within these
classes. Additionally, the universities significantly underutilize classrooms at certain times
during the day.
Classroom utilization low—Although ASU’s, NAU’s, and UA’s utilization rates differ, all
fail to meet the Board’s guidelines in at least one aspect. Classroom use is generally
measured by the average number of hours classes are scheduled per week and the average
number of seats occupied during these classes. In 1993, the Arizona Board of Regents
adopted guidelines for classroom use based on those developed by the Council for
Educational Facilities Planners, International, an organization representing elementary,
secondary, and postsecondary educational facility planners. The Board’s guidelines state
that classes should be scheduled in classrooms at least 30 of the 50 hours available per
week between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, or 60 percent of the hours
available. Additionally, a minimum of 60 percent of the seats should be filled within these
classes, resulting in 36 percent of seats filled weekly. As can be seen in Table 2 (see page
8), no university meets the first standard, and NAU also fails to meet the second.
The classroom use represented in Table 2 represents average use for all classrooms; the
universities use some classrooms considerably more than 30 hours per week, and use
others only a few hours per week. UA annually publishes utilization information for each
classroom on campus. While certain rooms at UA are heavily used, the University
8
schedules fewer than 10 hours of instruction in 18 classrooms. Only 2 classes, for a total of
6 hours per week, were offered in one 30-seat classroom in UA’s Education building
during the fall 1996 semester. Additionally, only one class, for 3 hours per week, was
offered in a 75-seat classroom in the Nursing building.
Table 2
Arizona’s Public Universities
Classroom Use
Fall 1996
Hours
Per Week
Between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Percentage of
Seats Filled
Arizona Board of
Regents’ guidelines 30 60%
UA 25 64
NAU 26 51
ASU 28 62
Source: The Arizona Board of Regents’ 1997 Annual Space Inventory and Utilization Report.
Classroom use varies by hour—The universities use their classrooms significantly less in the
early mornings, late afternoons, and on Friday afternoons. For example, in the fall 1996
semester, ASU scheduled classes in fewer than 30 percent of its rooms between 7:00 and
8:00 a.m. on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Similarly, NAU scheduled classes in fewer
than 40 percent of its classrooms before 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday and Thursday. In contrast,
during the peak hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., these universities often use more than 80
percent of their classrooms.
Classroom use further diminishes after 5:00 p.m. and on the weekends, time periods which
are not included in the classroom use guidelines. ASU, NAU, and UA use, on average, 20
percent, 12 percent, and 16 percent of their classrooms between 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, respectively. Further, each university uses between 2 and 6
percent of its classrooms on Saturday between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.
To increase use at off-peak times, universities can implement policies designed to
distribute their classes more evenly throughout the day. UA prohibits its departments from
9
scheduling more than 7 percent of their classes in any time slot. Additionally, the College
of Social and Behavioral Sciences at NAU restricts departments from offering more than
35 percent of their classes between 9:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Other universities have similar
rules. For example, the University of California at Berkeley restricts departments to
scheduling only 70 percent of their classes between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The University
of Texas at Austin allows departments to use only a certain number of classrooms each
hour based on how many classes the department offers compared to the total number of
classes offered by the university. Ohio University at Athens requires departments to
schedule 15 percent of their regular undergraduate classes at either 8:00 a.m. or 12:00 p.m.
Another 15 percent must be scheduled at or after 3:00 p.m., and 15 percent must meet on
Friday.
Additional classroom use not documented—The universities’ current utilization figures may
not reflect the total classroom usage at each university. In addition to regularly scheduled
for-credit classes, each university uses classrooms for other events, such as study and
review sessions, faculty meetings, and student meetings. According to the universities,
these events are important aspects of learning and should not be curtailed by increased use
of classrooms for regular classes. However, the extent classrooms are used for these
activities is not known because the universities do not regularly collect and report
utilization data for these events. The only information available regarding the use of
classrooms for other events is a 1990 ASU study which concluded that special events used
approximately 4 percent of available classroom time, or three hours per week in each
classroom.
The Board of Regents’ Guidelines
Need to Be Revised
Arizona’s guidelines, while similar to other states, fail to encourage sufficient use of
classroom space. Further, because the guidelines define rooms as “fully utilized” at a
relatively low usage level, they may lead the universities to overestimate classroom space
shortages.
The Board’s guidelines should be strengthened—While the majority of states with guidelines
require levels of classroom use similar to Arizona’s, a few states have adopted stricter
standards and/or include evening usage. Since 1970, California recommended universities
use their classrooms 75 percent of the time, including both day and evening hours.
However, in 1990, California determined that while this use was too low for day use, it
was not reasonable to expect this level of use in the evening and recommended revising
the guidelines. The University of California system now recommends using classrooms at
different rates depending on the time of day. Thus, between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.,
classrooms should be used 80 percent of the time. The rest of the day, from 12:00 p.m. to
5:00 p.m., classrooms should be in use 64 percent of the time. Finally, during the evening,
classrooms should be used 40 percent of the available time.
Also using higher standards, Utah recommends that its universities schedule classes 75
10
percent of the time out of a possible 45 hours, but allows the universities to determine
which 45 hours out of the week to schedule. Virginia and Texas also include evening usage
in their guidelines. Further, California, Utah, and Texas also recommend filling more seats
than Arizona, between 66 and 71.4 percent, compared to the 60 percent Arizona
recommends.
However, if evening use were added to actual day use for Arizona’s universities, NAU
and UA still do not meet the Board’s standard, much less those of Texas, Utah, California,
and Virginia. When evening hours are included, ASU, NAU, and UA used their
classrooms 33, 29, and 29 hours a week, respectively. In contrast, in Virginia, where a
higher standard is in effect, several universities use their classrooms more often. In fall
1996, 8 of Virginia’s universities used their classrooms more than 33 hours per week (the
highest use in Arizona). In fact, Virginia’s George Mason University used its classrooms
44 hours per week.
Several people in Arizona also believe the current guidelines warrant revision. During a
September 1996 Board of Regents meeting, some regents expressed concern with the
guidelines. One regent stated that the 60 percent classroom use standard was too low and
that the universities should consider increasing it to 80 percent. Another regent also felt
the current guidelines were outdated and new ones should be developed that
encompassed day, evening, and weekend use. It was during this meeting that the regents
decided to seek a private sector review of space issues at the universities. The resulting
Committee for External Review of University Capital Assets (Committee), after three
months of study, concluded that classroom use can and must be improved at all three
institutions. The Committee felt that the Board’s guidelines appear to be an average of
utilization rates nationally and not a goal the universities should be striving to attain.
Guidelines impact need for classroom space—The Board’s guidelines may result in the
universities overestimating their need for additional classroom space. Classroom
utilization guidelines, in addition to setting standards for the use of space, are used in a
formula to determine the amount of classroom space needed at each campus. Arizona’s
classroom usage guidelines, when calculated together with a standard student station size,
show that one square foot of space is needed for each weekly student contact hour. In other
words, for every student credit hour occurring at one of the campuses, one square foot of
classroom space should be available. Based on these guidelines, each university reports a
shortage of classroom space on its main campus.
However, if stricter guidelines were used in the formula, the universities could reduce or
eliminate the reported shortage of classroom space. For instance, if a guideline requiring
using classrooms five more hours per week and filling 5 percent more seats but allowing
one more square foot per student was applied to all classroom space, the universities
would greatly reduce the space shortage. As shown in Table 3 (see page 11), if the Board
adopts these stricter guidelines, ASU and NAU would have more than enough classroom
space, and UA’s shortage would be almost eliminated.
11
Table 3
Arizona’s Public Universities 1
Analysis of Classroom Space Needs
Fall 1996
ASU NAU UA2
Based on current Arizona guidelines
Existing classroom space 352,813 161,827 267,919
Estimated space needs 378,638 166,274 324,091
Surplus/Shortage of space (25,825) (4,447) (56,172)
Based on use of stricter guidelines
Existing classroom space 352,813 161,827 267,919
Estimated space needs 318,056 139,670 272,236
Surplus/Shortage of space 34,757 22,157 (4,317)
1 Main campus only.
2 Does not include UA’s College of Medicine.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of Arizona Board of Regents’ 1997 Annual Space Inventory and Utilization
Report.
Universities Should
Improve Classroom Use
As their statistics show, Arizona’s universities can more effectively use their existing
classroom space. Increased classroom use will allow the universities to serve more
students, reduce space shortages in other areas, or even prevent or delay the construction
of new classroom space. The universities are currently reviewing their guidelines and
discussing ways to increase classroom use. However, the Board of Regents should hold the
universities more accountable for increasing classroom use, including requiring them to
either meet use standards or justify lower use before new classroom construction is
approved.
Improved classroom use will lead to additional benefits—All three universities can derive
several benefits from increased use of their classroom space. By increasing classroom use,
the universities could serve more students or possibly convert ineffective classrooms into
other types of space. With expected future enrollment increases, it is possible that more
students could be accommodated on the main campuses. However, in the immediate
future, reducing the number of classrooms may provide other benefits. Both ASU and UA
12
plan to renovate older classrooms into other types of space when new classrooms are
opened in planned buildings, but this will not decrease the total number of classrooms
available. Some existing classrooms, possibly those unable to accommodate new
instructional technologies, could be renovated for alternate uses. Further, the universities
may be able to prevent or delay construction of new classroom space through increased
use of existing classrooms.
The Board should ensure classroom use increases—Recognizing these benefits, and in
response to the External Review Committee’s recommendations, the Board of Regents
formed a follow-up group charged with developing new space standards. The resulting
Work Group on Space Utilization, comprised of four members of the original committee
and space management officials from each university, is also discussing ways to increase
classroom use. The Work Group is developing new classroom use guidelines for the fall
semester of 1999 and then stricter guidelines for fall 2000. For instance, regular classrooms
should be used 32 hours per week by 1999 and 35 hours per week by 2000. The Work
Group will present its recommendations to the Board of Regents in October.
Once the Work Group presents its report, the Board of Regents should take steps to ensure
the universities increase classroom use. Currently, the Board does not hold the universities
accountable for meeting the existing classroom utilization guidelines. The Board should
strongly consider adopting the Work Group’s recommendations for new classroom
utilization guidelines, and require that the universities increase classroom use to meet
these guidelines.
The Board could also require the guidelines to be met before authorizing new classroom
construction. Virginia requires universities to meet its standards for classroom use prior
to authorizing construction of new classroom space. In its 1997 Guidelines for Higher
Education Fixed Assets, Virginia’s State Council for Higher Education states that
“institutions still must use their classrooms or class laboratories in excess of the Council’s
utilization guidelines for average hours of weekly use in order to justify the need for
additional instructional space to the Council.”
13
Recommendations
1. Arizona’s universities, in conjunction with the Work Group on Space Utilization,
should continue their work developing new classroom utilization standards. The
universities should also consider expanding the guidelines to include evening usage.
2. The Arizona Board of Regents should consider adopting new standards that the Work
Group recommends.
3. Arizona’s universities should increase the use of their classroom space in order to meet
the current guidelines and any new guidelines adopted by the Arizona Board of
Regents.
4. Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University should consider developing
university-wide policies to distribute class times more evenly throughout the day.
5. The Arizona Board of Regents should hold the universities accountable for meeting the
classroom use guidelines. Further, the Board should consider how the universities are
utilizing space when reviewing their requests for classroom construction.
6. To better document all uses of classroom space, Arizona’s universities should track and
quantify classroom use for all events other than scheduled classes.
14
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
15
FINDING II
UTILIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED
CLASSROOMS CAN BE IMPROVED
As Arizona’s universities take steps to increase classroom use, they should focus more on
some of the most expensive rooms, those equipped with instructional technology.
Computers, laser disc players, and in-class Internet access installed into classrooms can
augment traditional instruction techniques. Each university maintains several classrooms
equipped with this technology, but these rooms sit empty for much of the day. Several
factors may contribute to underutilization, including inefficient classroom scheduling
practices, limited uses for certain equipment, and equipment security problems. In
addition to using their existing classrooms more often, the universities need to determine
instructional technology’s effectiveness and appropriateness.
Instructional Technology
Enhances Classrooms
at Higher Cost
Classroom instructional technology enables instructors to present class materials to
students in a variety of ways. Computers, laser disc players, projectors that make the
instructor’s computer screen visible to the entire class, and access to the Internet in the
classroom are all examples of classroom instructional technology. For instance, auditors
watched an introductory science course in which a computer program was used to inform
students how many earthquakes had occurred in any given country in the last year. Also,
in addition to a traditional lecture in an astronomy class, the instructor showed a short
movie from a laser disc depicting the process of a supernova and an image taken from the
Internet that depicted an exploding star.
However, classrooms equipped with instructional technology cost more than traditional
classrooms. These classrooms may require special seating arrangements, raised flooring
to accommodate computer wiring, and additional maintenance costs. According to the
Board of Regents Construction Cost Control Guidelines, constructing these types of
classrooms can cost nearly twice as much per square foot as traditional classrooms and
lecture halls. Further, it can cost up to $20,000 to equip an instructional technology lecture
hall with an instructor computer and a projector.
In addition to the 70 existing classrooms and labs that contain at least a computer for the
instructor, each university plans to add more instructional technology equipment. For
example, all 33 classrooms in ASU’s planned $35.5 million Mediated Classroom Building
16
will be equipped with instructional technology costing $3.3 million. In addition, UA’s
planned $20 million Integrated Instructional Facility building also will include classrooms
enhanced with instructional technology.
Instructional Technology
Underused
Although instructional technology classrooms and laboratories are costly, universities
currently underutilize existing space. On average, classes are offered less than 50 percent
of the day in instructional technology classrooms and laboratories. This use falls below the
State’s standard for all classrooms.
Technology-equipped classrooms underutilized—Each university underutilizes classrooms
equipped with instructional technology. For the purposes of this audit, classrooms and
instructional labs reviewed were those rooms that contained a minimum of a computer for
the instructor to use. In addition to computers, many of these rooms also have projectors
for displaying computer information onto a screen, or Internet access. To determine how
many rooms with these resources exist, UA asked departments to report their instructional
technology resources. Auditors contacted each college at NAU for the same information.
Only ASU could readily provide a list of such rooms. According to these reports and
ASU’s supplied list, Arizona universities maintain 70 instructional technology classrooms
and laboratories. However, this figure underestimates the number of rooms equipped with
some form of technology because many classrooms and labs contain sophisticated
projectors or other equipment, but not a computer. Instead, instructors may bring in
laptops or multi-media carts to use for their classes.
The universities may be scheduling an insufficient number of classes in their classrooms
equipped with at least an instructor computer. The universities report scheduling these 70
rooms, on average, only 45 percent of the time during the fall 1996 semester. Thus, these
rooms were not used for instruction for over 27 hours each week between 7:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. This low use occurred despite numerous faculty and administrators reporting
that they did not have enough of this type of space.
Classroom and lab use below state standard—The universities also failed to meet the
Board’s utilization guidelines for their technology-enhanced classrooms and laboratories.
Of the 70 rooms identified, 45 are classified as classrooms, and 25 rooms at NAU and UA
as computer labs. UA schedules its rooms an average of 27 hours a week, while NAU
schedules its rooms an average of 22 hours a week. Only ASU meets the guidelines,
scheduling its classrooms 30 hours per week. While Finding I (see pages 7 through 13)
recommends implementing a higher utilization standard, due to the expense of equipping
these classrooms, they should be used more often than traditional classrooms.
The universities also maintain several computer laboratories that are used for class
instruction. The Board recommends that class labs be used less often than classrooms since
17
a certain amount of unscheduled time is necessary for students to complete lab
assignments. Class labs that are typically used by disciplines such as business or the social
and physical sciences should be scheduled 22.5 hours per week. Neither NAU nor UA
currently meet this standard; their computer class labs are scheduled 20 hours and 11
hours, respectively. In addition, NAU does not currently meet the standard for class labs
that are typically used by disciplines requiring more lab time, such as engineering and
agriculture. The standard for these class labs is 11.25 hours per week. UA scheduled these
rooms equipped with computers 14 hours per week; however, NAU scheduled their
computer class labs only 4 hours per week.
Several Factors Contribute
to Low Utilization Rates
Several factors may contribute to the universities’ underutilization of technology-enhanced
classrooms. Some of the equipment takes considerable time to set up for class. However,
other problems that are more within the universities’ control, such as how these rooms are
scheduled, may also contribute to lower utilization rates.
n One inherent characteristic of the technology may result in low usage. Since setting up
the equipment for each class may take instructors longer than the allotted 10 to 15
minutes between each class session, classes are often not scheduled back-to-back in
technology-enhanced classrooms and laboratories. Instructors need time to download
information from the Internet, set up laser disc players and projection screens, and
organize their materials before class.
In addition, other factors may be more within the universities’ control.
n Classrooms scheduled inefficiently—University departments may inadequately
schedule classrooms equipped with instructional technology. At both NAU and UA,
individual departments have primary control over classrooms equipped with
instructional technology. These individual departments determine how many courses
will be scheduled in their classrooms, which often results in much lower utilization
rates. However, ASU centrally schedules most of its instructional technology space. As
discussed in Finding III (see pages 21 through 25), classrooms and laboratories
controlled by departments are more difficult to monitor and have lower utilization
rates. Departments may schedule fewer classes in these enhanced classrooms because
they consider only their own department’s requests for space.
n Some faculty resistant to technology—Some faculty members interviewed during
the audit expressed resistance to incorporating technology into their lectures. These
faculty members felt that using laser discs and computers in the classroom would not
18
affect student learning. In addition, some faculty indicated that preparing their
curricula for instructional technology lectures takes considerable time. Further, while
each university provides training on this equipment, this training may require
considerable time.
n Staff needed to oversee instructional technology—Instructional technology, which
can be easily damaged, often requires staff to operate and maintain the equipment and
ensure that it is kept safe. Staff may not be available to support additional classes.
Universities Need to Increase
Use of Technology-Enhanced
Classrooms
Arizona’s universities need to take steps to ensure technology-equipped classrooms are
more extensively used. To ensure these rooms are adequately used, the universities need
to first identify the instructional technology that is currently available in their classrooms.
In addition, the universities should determine the effectiveness of this technology and how
much more is needed before they invest in additional technology-equipped classrooms.
Universities need to better track classrooms equipped with instructional technology—In order
to increase the use of these classrooms, the universities first must be able to identify
classrooms equipped with instructional technology. Without this information, it is difficult
to effectively manage or monitor this space. During the audit UA and NAU did not
maintain complete information on the instructional technology in their classrooms;
specifically, they could not identify which rooms were equipped with at least an instructor
computer. ASU, however, tracks this information. Due to its knowledge of which
classrooms include technology, ASU can monitor their use and take steps to increase the
use of certain classrooms. For example, in one classroom, the computers equipped with an
unpopular operating system are being replaced by computers requested more often. The
less-used computers will be consolidated with other computers and placed in another
classroom.
However, several recent initiatives should provide more information on the extent and use
of these resources. First, NAU, after the spring 1997 semester, identified the technology
available in each classroom on its campus. Further, as part of its review of classroom use,
the Work Group on Space Utilization is looking at how the universities define and track
instructional technology resources. Currently, the universities report one utilization rate
for all classrooms to the Board of Regents. However, the Work Group is considering
whether the universities should separately identify and report utilization for different
types of classrooms, such as traditional classrooms and computer classrooms.
Additional study needed—In addition to increasing the use of existing enhanced
classrooms, the universities need to determine what additional technology resources are
needed and for what purposes. ASU has recently hired a consultant to determine both the
type and amount of classrooms the ASU campus will need in the future, including those
19
equipped with instructional technology. In addition, if the universities begin determining
utilization of classrooms by type, including those equipped with instructional technology,
they will be able to determine if their current mix of classroom space is appropriate.
Further study is also needed to determine the effectiveness of instructional technology on
learning. Some experts argue that there is little research to demonstrate whether or not
instructional technology is actually an effective tool. In addition, the issue of technological
flexibility is also a critical component. Technology is constantly changing and evolving.
Experts argue that universities need to have the ability to reconfigure classrooms as new
technologies develop; they should not become restricted to one type of technology. UA has
recently applied for a federal grant to study the effectiveness of instructional technology
in the classroom setting. The university plans to study this issue over the next five years
and will evaluate the current use of technology in the classroom and determine its
effectiveness for several different disciplines.
Recommendations
1. Arizona universities need to better identify and track the amount of instructional
technology currently available on their campuses.
2. Once identified, the universities need to ensure that these rooms are more highly
utilized.
3. Arizona universities should continue to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness
of instructional technology.
20
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
21
FINDING III
IMPROVED SCHEDULING PROCESSES
COULD ENHANCE UTILIZATION
OF CLASSROOM SPACE
The universities should schedule more classes through central offices and expand their use
of computer scheduling programs. Currently each university schedules classrooms
differently. However, all three could increase classroom use, make it easier for academic
departments to share needed classrooms, provide better information to university
management, and facilitate the scheduling of special events by shifting more classroom
scheduling responsibilities from departments to central offices. Additionally, the
universities could further enhance their scheduling processes by expanding the use of
computer programs to develop classroom schedules.
Classroom Scheduling Process
Differs at Each University
The universities’ approaches to scheduling classes and events into classrooms vary.
n At NAU, central administration does not schedule any of its 191 classrooms. Rather,
individual colleges set the schedules for the classrooms in their buildings. Faculty
opposed two initiatives in the past 6 years to centralize NAU’s classroom scheduling
function. However, NAU recently purchased schedule 25, a classroom scheduling
software program, which will lead to centralized and computerized classroom
scheduling in the future.
n At UA, the Registrar’s office officially schedules classes and special events into 206 of
their 324 classrooms using Schedule 25. The remaining 118 classrooms are scheduled
by departments, colleges, or other units.
n At ASU, the Academic Facilities office manually schedules classes and special events
in almost all of the campus’ 327 classrooms with limited assistance from a computer
program. However, 42 classrooms are completely or partially controlled by other units,
most notably the Law School and Master of Business Administration program.
22
Additionally, all three universities allow academic departments and colleges to control
instructional laboratories and to determine which classes will be offered and at what time.
Scheduling More Classes
through Central Offices Will
Improve Classroom Use
Arizona’s universities should more fully centralize their classroom scheduling functions.
Centralized scheduling offers many advantages, including increased classroom use. At the
same time, potential problems can be avoided through careful implementation and stricter
oversight of rooms remaining under department and college control.
Centralized scheduling offers numerous advantages—Authorizing central administrative
offices to schedule classes and events into classrooms offers numerous benefits. A central
scheduling function produces higher classroom utilization rates, makes it easier for
multiple academic departments to share needed classrooms, produces better information
for managing space, and provides a central point of contact.
n Better utilization—Classrooms controlled by central offices tend to be used more often
than those controlled by departments and colleges. During the fall of 1996, classes were
scheduled in classrooms controlled by UA’s Registrar’s Office an average of 29 hours
per week. In contrast, academic departments and colleges scheduled classes an average
of only 18 hours per week in their classrooms. Similarly, ASU reports that for the same
period, classrooms controlled by Academic Facilities were scheduled for an average of
29 hours of classes per week, while locally controlled rooms were only scheduled for
21 hours of classes per week.
n Effective sharing—Although the universities encourage departments and colleges to
share use of the rooms that they control, some classrooms remain underutilized. For
example, ASU’s Law School controls a large room, the Great Hall, which seats 400
people. During the fall 1996 semester, classes were scheduled only 2 hours per week
in this room. At the same time, Academic Facilities was unable to fill approximately 25
requests for large lecture halls. Consequently, the requesting departments were forced
to change their class offerings to match available rooms.
Additionally, some colleges and departments circumvent the policies that encourage
them to share rooms with other units. The auditors identified several departments at
UA that effectively control classrooms, contrary to university policy. For example, the
Civil Engineering and Finance departments wrote letters to the Registrar’s office
requesting that the Registrar’s office not schedule any other departments’ events or
classes into certain classrooms because they wanted to schedule their own special
events into those rooms. The Registrar’s office complied with the requests, allowing the
23
departments to effectively control these rooms. In one such room, the department
scheduled only nine hours of classes per week during the fall 1996 semester.
n More accurate information for managing space—Departmental control of
classrooms may also contribute to inaccurate information on classroom use. For
example, auditors identified several cases where UA’s Registrar’s office records
regarding use of departmentally controlled classrooms differed from the records the
departments maintained. For example, the Civil Engineering Department’s records
showed a class as having been held on a different day than the Registrar’s records
showed.
n Improved scheduling of special events—Finally, a central classroom scheduling
office provides a single point of contact. University staff, faculty, and students would
only have to telephone one office to request a classroom for meetings or special events.
In contrast, finding an available classroom under a decentralized system could involve
calling dozens of offices, which may control only a few classrooms each.
Careful implementation of centralization can avoid problems—Although centralizing the
classroom scheduling function provides many benefits, it should be carefully implemented
to avoid potential problems. First, some faculty and staff have voiced concerns that they
would be assigned to teach in inappropriate classrooms. However, a central scheduling
office can use a computer program that is specifically designed to match faculty needs to
appropriate classrooms, as discussed later in this finding. Second, certain classrooms may
be more appropriately controlled by departments or colleges. For instance, some rooms
equipped with specialized equipment can only be used by certain disciplines. Therefore,
the universities will need to develop a formal process to consider department and college
requests for exceptions to centralization. However, departments or colleges that retain
control of rooms should be required to regularly justify this arrangement.
Other universities successfully schedule classrooms through a central office—Other
universities have increased utilization rates and reaped other benefits by centralizing
classroom scheduling. For example, Old Dominion University reported that it has
“dramatically improved” its classroom utilization rates by moving to centralized
scheduling using a computer scheduling program. Similarly, the Ohio University at
Athens has found that centrally scheduled classrooms are used more than locally
controlled rooms. Eleven of the 12 universities contacted for this audit control most of their
classrooms through centralized offices.
24
Computerized Scheduling Improves
Efficiency and Effectiveness
In addition to scheduling more classes through central offices, the universities can improve
operations by further automating the classroom scheduling process. The universities are
already studying some aspects of automation. However, each could realize additional
benefits, such as increased efficiency, by adopting or improving its use of computerized
classroom scheduling programs.
Universities considering additional automation—Although the universities currently use
a variety of approaches, they are considering the extent to which they should use computer
programs to develop classroom schedules. ASU is considering whether they should fully
automate their scheduling functions, and NAU recently purchased a computerized
scheduling program. Similarly, the Committee for External Review of University Assets
recommended that the universities centralize their scheduling function and fully adopt a
computerized scheduling program.
While UA already uses Schedule 25, a computerized scheduling program, its staff are
working to identify ways to more effectively use the program. They have found that many
problems may be related to how UA uses its automated scheduling program, rather than
problems with the program itself. For example, the program is used to place only a
minority of classroom requests. The majority of requests are still manually scheduled in
response to department pressure and other factors. Further, UA may not be using all of
Schedule 25’s features. The Registrar’s office is considering purchasing an auxiliary
computer program that will work with the existing system to further improve this process.
Using computer programs to schedule classrooms offers advantages—Using a computer
program to schedule classes into classrooms provides several benefits over manual
methods. Experts generally praise computerized scheduling for its efficiency. The leading
computer programs, for example, can generate an entire university’s classroom schedule
in minutes once they have been fully programmed and room requests have been entered.
Additionally, computer programs help universities to quickly find new locations for
existing classes if a classroom must be unexpectedly closed. Further, computer programs
may produce more efficient schedules, resulting in higher classroom utilization rates.
Finally, using scheduling programs forces university administrators to carefully consider
their space policies. Computer software should be programmed to consider priorities and
other factors when scheduling competing needs. Therefore, administrators must
consciously consider and articulate their space policies and priorities when setting up these
programs.
25
Recommendations
1. The universities should, as a general practice, centrally schedule classrooms.
2. The universities should develop formal processes to consider department or college
requests to exempt specific rooms from central control. Departments and colleges
should be required to regularly justify all classroom space that remains under their
control to ensure that it continues to be used in the universities’ best interests.
3. The University of Arizona should continue to study ways to improve its automated
scheduling process. For example, the University should consider whether it can reduce
the number of manually scheduled classes and special events.
4. Arizona State University should consider fully automating their classroom scheduling
processes. Northern Arizona University should monitor the implementation of their
automated scheduling software to avoid the problems experienced by the University
of Arizona.
26
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
27
FINDING IV
UNIVERSITIES SHOULD FULLY
IMPLEMENT BEST PRACTICES
IN SPACE MANAGEMENT
Arizona’s universities should strengthen their space management practices to ensure the
efficient use of existing university facilities. First, NAU needs to take steps to ensure that its
space inventory records are complete and accurate. Second, the Board of Regents and the
universities should review and possibly revise the guidelines currently used to calculate how
much space each university needs. Finally, the universities can implement comprehensive
space management practices recommended by experts and other universities.
NAU Needs to Improve
Its Room Inventory Data
As a part of space management, experts agree that space inventories provide universities
with critical baseline information. According to some experts, “The key to properly
analyzing the existing physical facilities of any institution of higher learning is the
establishment of an inventory system containing the proper data . . . “1 Further, for an
inventory to be useful, it should contain a description of all facilities and their use, indicate
which units are assigned to use each room, and be updated regularly.
Although all three universities maintain inventory databases, NAU does not conduct
regular reviews of its inventory data, and the information in its inventory is less
comprehensive than the other universities’. Both ASU and UA annually review inventory
records by sending printouts to departments for them to review, and having staff and/or
student workers visit rooms to verify their use and characteristics. NAU, however, had not
updated its inventory in five years until instructional space was reviewed in 1997. Further,
in contrast to ASU and UA’s inventory, NAU’s inventory records do not reflect which
department is assigned to each room.
NAU has recently taken steps to improve its space inventory. First, the University used
students to conduct a limited review in the summer of 1997. However, the University does
not plan to complete this physical review regularly and only included instructional space.
Second, NAU will ask departments to review inventory printouts beginning in the 1997-
1998 academic year; however, this will also be limited to instructional space. To ensure the
1 Bareither, Harlan D., and Jerry L. Schillinger. University Space Planning. Illinois: University of Illinois Press,
1968.
28
accuracy of their inventory, one NAU administrator suggested reviewing the inventory
data while completing the University’s annual maintenance needs review, which involves
physically checking the University’s buildings on a three-year rotation for maintenance
problems.
Space Guidelines
Should Be Reviewed
The universities can also improve their space management activities by reviewing and
possibly revising the guidelines used to identify space needs. In addition to setting
classroom utilization standards as described in Finding I (see pages 7 through 13), the
Board of Regents’ space guidelines help universities determine how much space they need
for faculty and staff offices, research labs, and other space. For example, according to the
guidelines, faculty should be provided 140 square feet of office space, and high-level
administrators 180 square feet of office space. However, just as Finding I concluded that
the classroom use guidelines overestimate classroom space needs, the remaining
guidelines may overestimate universities’ other space needs. Each university reports
significant shortages in several areas, such as research labs and offices, based on these
guidelines. Yet, during ASU’s most recent accreditation review, the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools, a higher education accrediting body, commented on
the generosity of Arizona’s guidelines. Their report stated that “Few institutions meet
these space standards, which are generally regarded as generous; and ASU’s present space
is sufficient and often comfortable for operating the University’s programs.”
The Board and universities, in conjunction with private sector volunteers, are currently
reviewing the existing guidelines. During its review of space issues, the Committee for
External Review of University Capital Assets (Committee) concluded that Arizona’s
guidelines need revision. Although the Committee focused on the classroom guidelines,
it also noted that the universities report significant demand for office, laboratory, and
research space, and thus, these guidelines also deserve attention. The follow-up committee,
the Work Group on Space Utilization, plans to recommend changes to the guidelines by
the fall of 1997.
Universities Should
Adopt Additional Space
Management Practices
The universities could also improve their efforts to monitor space utilization by expanding
their current limited practices. Specifically, each university could adopt additional space
management tools.
Universities provide ad-hoc space management—The universities’ space management
29
practices are limited. NAU reduced its space management unit in 1993 from 4 FTE to .5
FTE and currently provides only minimal assistance to departments requesting space. As
mentioned earlier, ASU and UA conduct an annual physical inspection of all space, but
specifically review whether a particular department has too little or too much space only
when a department requests additional space. This analysis is not currently completed on
a campus-wide or regularly scheduled basis. Similarly, ASU and UA often rely on
anecdotal complaints to identify departments that may be misusing space. As a result, the
universities cannot ensure that current space allocations are equitable and that space is
properly used.
The universities could adopt new practices—In order to strengthen their space management
function, the universities should consider implementing more proactive space
management practices. Experts, other universities, and Arizona’s universities provide
additional suggestions for monitoring and improving space use on campus. For example:
n Comparing space allocations by college or department—While the universities use
their guidelines and inventory to determine campus-wide space needs, this analysis
can be regularly completed to compare space allocations by college or department. This
can help space managers identify units with the most critical space shortages and
surpluses. The space management unit at the University of Wisconsin at Madison
annually compares space by department. ASU’s space management unit is currently
creating a computer program to prepare this type of report.
n Conducting in-depth space audits—Space guidelines, however, offer only one way
to analyze space allocations. Space managers at the University of Wisconsin annually
conduct two to three in-depth audits of certain departments’ use of space each year.
Departments are selected based on an annual comparison of space between
departments or staff judgment. The University’s 1997 audit of its Agricultural and
Applied Economics Department included analysis of the department’s existing space
allocation compared to Wisconsin’s standards, whether the department’s student
enrollment trends supported the current space allocation, and whether the department
was appropriately using office and classroom space. The final report, prepared for the
University’s top management, concluded that the department could relinquish two
floors plus the basement of its building. Although UA currently conducts some space
analyses, its reports consider fewer factors than Wisconsin’s audits and are only
conducted on an ad-hoc basis.
n Allocating space based on productivity factors—Space managers can also use
productivity factors to measure how well space is used, specifically classroom space.
Finding II (see pages 15 through 19), addresses current classroom usage and efforts to
increase utilization. However, universities can subject other types of space to
productivity analysis.
30
The utilization of class laboratories can also be studied to help determine appropriate
allocations. Financial productivity measures that focus on revenues generated or costs
saved for a given space are appropriate for reviewing auxiliary spaces, such as
residence halls or dining facilities, and also research space. Space used for research
purposes directly attracts revenues in the form of grants and contracts. The Council for
Higher Education for Virginia’s 1997 space guidelines include standards for tying
research space to dollars generated through research. The ASU College of Engineering
uses research dollars generated as one criteria for assigning research space. Further,
UA’s science colleges also use a similar measure, looking at graduate students
supervised, research dollars generated, and publications, when reviewing research
space assignments. UA officials are in the process of developing additional
productivity measures more applicable to other disciplines and other types of space.
Recommendations
1. Northern Arizona University should implement procedures to regularly verify all
space in their inventory database.
2. The Arizona Board of Regents and the universities should continue their work
reviewing and possibly altering their existing space guidelines.
3. The universities should take a more proactive approach to space management. As a
part of this effort, they should consider implementing additional space management
practices, such as:
# Comparing space allocations for each college or department;
# Conducting in-depth space audits of selected departments each year in rotation; and
# Allocating space based on productivity factors.
Agency Response
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Response to Auditor General=s Report
The Arizona Board of Regents and Arizona=s universities are pleased to present our response to
the Auditor General=s performance audit of space utilization at Arizona=s universities. We
appreciate the opportunity to respond to the study=s findings.
In general, we concur with the findings and recommendations included in the report. In fact,
several of the recommendations appear to be consistent with work group reports commissioned
by the Regents. As requested, we have responded to each of the report=s recommendations using
the four statements from the cover letter that accompanied the report.
Finding I: Universities Need to Improve Classroom Utilization
Recommendation 1.
Arizona=s universities, in conjunction with the Work Group on Space Utilization, should
continue their work developing new classroom utilization standards. The universities should
also consider expanding the guidelines to include evening usage.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 2.
The Arizona Board of Regents should consider adopting new standards that the Work Group
recommends.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 3:
Arizona=s universities should increase the use of their classroom space in order to meet the
current guidelines and any new guidelines adopted by the Arizona Board of Regents.
Response to the Auditor General=s Report
October 28, 1997
Page 2
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 4:
Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University should consider developing
university-wide policies to distribute class times more evenly throughout the day.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Northern Arizona University is considering moving classes to various sites on the
campus to reduce travel time and increase convenience for students. This would
allow for distributing scheduled classes more evenly throughout the day.
Recommendation 5:
The Arizona Board of Regents should hold the universities accountable for meeting the
classroom use guidelines. Further, the Board should consider how the universities are
utilizing space when reviewing their requests for classroom construction.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 6:
To better document all uses of classroom space, Arizona=s universities should track and
quantify classroom use for all events other than scheduled classes.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Response to the Auditor General=s Report
October 28, 1997
Page 3
Finding II: Utilization of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms Can Be Improved
Recommendation 1:
Arizona universities need to better identify and track the amount of instructional technology
currently available on their campuses.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 2:
Once identified, the universities need to ensure that these rooms are more highly utilized.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 3:
Arizona universities should continue to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of
instructional technology.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Finding III: Improved Scheduling Processes Could Enhance Utilization of Classroom Space
Recommendation 1:
The universities should, as a general practice, centrally schedule classrooms.
Response to the Auditor General=s Report
October 28, 1997
Page 4
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Arizona State University currently schedules more than ninety-five percent of its
classrooms centrally.
Recommendation 2:
The universities should develop formal processes to consider department or college requests
to exempt specific rooms from central control. Departments and colleges should be required
to regularly justify all classroom space that remains under their control to ensure that it
continues to be used in the universities= best interests.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 3:
The University of Arizona should continue to study ways to improve its automated scheduling
process. For example, the University should consider whether it can reduce the number of
manually scheduled classes and special events.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 4:
Arizona State University should consider fully automating their classroom scheduling
processes. Northern Arizona University should monitor the implementation of their
automated scheduling software to avoid the problems experienced by the University of
Arizona.
Response to the Auditor General=s Report
October 28, 1997
Page 5
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Arizona State University plans to purchase software that will enable the university
to fully automate classroom scheduling. The new software will be used to schedule
classes for Fall, 1998.
Northern Arizona University agrees that the classroom scheduling process should be
automated. Software for this purpose has been purchased, and it will be
implemented as part of a new student information system. The approximate date
for this implementation is Fall, 1999. The University will monitor implementation
carefully in order to try to avoid problems experienced by the University of Arizona.
Finding IV: Universities Should Fully Implement Best Practices in Space Management
Recommendation 1:
Northern Arizona University should implement procedures to regularly verify all space in their
inventory database.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Northern Arizona University has begun a process of systematic verification of all
space in the inventory database. This work will be continued and updated on a
regular, revolving schedule to ensure the integrity of the data contained in the
database for reporting purposes and internal use.
Recommendation 2:
The Arizona Board of Regents and the universities should continue their work reviewing and
possibly altering their existing space guidelines.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Response to the Auditor General=s Report
October 28, 1997
Page 6
Recommendation 3:
The universities should take a more proactive approach to space management. As a part of
this effort, they should consider implementing additional space management practices, such as:
· Comparing space allocations for each college or department;
· Conducting more in-depth space audits of selected departments each year in rotation; and
· Allocating space based on productivity factors.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
ARIZONA
UNIVERSITIES’
SPACE UTILIZATION
October 1997
Report # 97-16
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
October 27, 1997
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Dr. Frank H. Besnette, Executive Director
Arizona Board of Regents
Dr. Lattie Coor, President
Arizona State University
Dr. Clara Lovett, President
Northern Arizona University
Dr. Peter Likins, President
University of Arizona
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Universities’ Space Utilization.
This report is in response to a June 10, 1996, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.
This is the first in a series of reports to be issued on the university system in response to the requirements of A.R.S. §41-2958.
The report addresses ways in which the universities can better manage the existing space on their main campuses.
Specifically, each university can improve the use of classrooms, which currently hold classes, on average, less than 60 percent
of each day. Not only does this use fall below the Board of Regents’ current guidelines regarding utilization of classroom
space, but these guidelines may themselves be set too low to ensure classrooms are adequately used. The Board of Regents
should continue its efforts to develop new classroom utilization standards and hold the universities accountable for increasing
their use of classroom space. Additionally, as the universities take steps to increase classroom use, they should focus on some
of the most expensive rooms, those equipped with instructional technology, which are also underutilized. One way to
improve classroom use would be for the universities to schedule more classes through central scheduling offices and more
fully automate their scheduling function.
As outlined in their response, the universities agree with all of the findings and recommendations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on October 28, 1997.
Sincerely,
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
Enclosure
i
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of space utilization
at Arizona’s universities. This audit was conducted pursuant to a June 10, 1996, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, and is the first in a series of four performance
audits of the universities performed in response to the requirements of A.R.S. §41-2958.
Arizona’s three universities, Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe, Northern Arizona
University (NAU) in Flagstaff, and the University of Arizona (UA) in Tucson, maintain a
total of over 23 million gross square feet of space on their campuses. This includes
classrooms and laboratories, offices, residence halls, athletic facilities, dining halls, and
student recreation centers. Although the universities manage their space differently, they
could all improve the way they use and monitor their facilities.
Universities Need to Improve
Classroom Utilization
(See pages 7 through 13)
Arizona’s universities can improve their use of classroom space. On average, each
university schedules classes in its classrooms less than 60 percent of the day. This
represents average use for all classrooms; the universities use their classrooms significantly
less in the early mornings, late afternoons, and on Friday afternoons. Further, this use
(between 25 and 28 hours per week out of the 50 hours possibly available, Monday
through Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.) falls below the Board of Regents (Board) standard that
recommends classrooms be used 30 hours per week. However, even if the universities met
the Board’s guidelines for classroom use, the guidelines may not ensure classrooms are
adequately used. Some regents and private sector representatives, upon reviewing the
Board’s guidelines, concluded that they should be revised to encourage increased use of
classrooms. Further, stricter guidelines would reduce or eliminate the universities’ need
for additional classroom space.
By using their existing classrooms more often, the universities may be able to serve more
students, convert underutilized classrooms into other types of needed space, or prevent
or delay construction of new classroom space. The universities, in conjunction with private
sector volunteers, are discussing raising the classroom utilization guidelines and
identifying methods to increase classroom use. However, the Board of Regents should
ensure new standards are developed and hold the universities accountable for increasing
their use of classroom space. Further, the Board should consider how the universities are
utilizing space when reviewing their requests for classroom construction.
ii
Utilization of Technology-Enhanced
Classrooms Can Be Improved
(See pages 15 through 19)
Arizona’s universities are taking steps to increase classroom use, but should focus more
on some of the more expensive rooms, those equipped with instructional technology. The
3 universities currently maintain 70 classrooms equipped with at least an instructor
computer, and have plans to build more rooms equipped with computers, laser disc
players, in-class Internet access, and/or sophisticated projection equipment. These
technologies can augment traditional instructional techniques, but classrooms equipped
with these items can cost nearly twice as much per square foot to construct than traditional
classrooms.
Although instructional technology classrooms and laboratories are among the most costly
on campus, both NAU and UA currently use them, on average, fewer than the 30 hours
per week required under the Board of Regents’ classroom utilization guidelines. NAU,
UA, and ASU use their classrooms equipped with at least an instructor’s computer 22, 27,
and 30 hours per week, respectively. Although certain inherent characteristics of the
technology can result in low usage, such as additional time needed to set up equipment,
other factors, such as inefficient scheduling practices, are within the universities’ control.
Each university should take steps to increase the use of these specialized classrooms. In
order to accomplish this, the universities need to first identify all classrooms equipped
with instructional technology. Additionally, the universities should determine this
technology’s effectiveness and the extent to which it is needed on each campus.
Improved Scheduling Processes
Could Enhance Utilization
of Classroom Space
(See pages 21 through 25)
Currently each university schedules classroom use differently. While NAU allows its
academic departments to control all classrooms, UA and ASU schedule the majority of
classrooms through a central scheduling office. However, all three could increase
classroom use by scheduling more classes through central offices. For example, classrooms
scheduled centrally at UA held classes 29 hours per week, compared to only 18 hours per
week of classes in departmentally controlled classrooms. Additionally, centrally scheduling
classrooms makes it easier for academic departments to share needed classrooms, produces more
accurate information for managing space, and provides a central contact point.
To further improve classroom scheduling, the universities should consider more fully
automating their scheduling functions. Universities can use software programs to assign
classes to available classrooms that match instructors’ preferences. These programs allow
universities to increase the efficiency of their scheduling processes by eliminating the need
iii
to manually schedule classes each semester. ASU and NAU are considering whether they
should fully automate their scheduling functions. UA, which already owns an automated
scheduling program, is working to identify ways to more effectively use it.
Universities Should Fully
Implement Best Practices
in Space Management
(See pages 27 through 30)
In addition to increasing classroom utilization, the Arizona Board of Regents and the
universities can further strengthen their space management practices, which ensure the
efficient use of university facilities. First, NAU needs to improve its space inventory. In
contrast to ASU and UA, NAU does not conduct regular reviews of all of its inventory
data, and its inventory records do not reflect the departments assigned to use each room.
Second, the Board of Regents and the universities should review and possibly revise the
State’s guidelines used to identify how much space each university needs for offices,
research labs, and libraries. These guidelines, which establish, for example, that faculty
should have 140 square feet of office space, may overestimate space shortages. Finally,
each university should adopt additional space management techniques that help determine
appropriate space allocations. Techniques available include comparing space allocations
by college or department, conducting in-depth space audits of departments, and allocating
space based on productivity factors, which help determine how well space is used.
iv
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
v
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Background............................................................... 1
Finding I: Universities Need to Improve
Classroom Utilization................................................................. 7
Universities Do Not Meet
Classroom Use Guidelines ................................................................................. 7
The Board of Regents’ Guidelines
Need to Be Revised............................................................................................. 9
Universities Should
Improve Classroom Use ..................................................................................... 11
Recommendations............................................................................................... 13
Finding II: Utilization of Technology-Enhanced
Classrooms Can Be Improved .................................................. 15
Instructional Technology
Enhances Classrooms
at Higher Cost...................................................................................................... 15
Instructional Technology
Underused........................................................................................................... 16
Several Factors Contribute
to Low Utilization Rates..................................................................................... 17
Universities Need to Increase
Use of Technology-Enhanced
Classrooms........................................................................................................... 18
Recommendations............................................................................................... 19
vi
Table of Contents (cont’d)
Page
Finding III: Improved Scheduling Processes
Could Enhance Utilization
of Classroom Space................................................................... 21
Classroom Scheduling Process
Differs at Each University.................................................................................. 21
Scheduling More Classes
through Central Offices Will
Increase Classroom Use...................................................................................... 22
Computerized Scheduling Improves
Efficiency and Effectiveness............................................................................... 24
Recommendations............................................................................................... 25
Finding IV: Universities Should Fully
Implement Best Practices
in Space Management................................................................ 27
NAU Needs to Improve
Its Room Inventory Data .................................................................................... 27
Space Guidelines
Should Be Reviewed........................................................................................... 28
Universities Should
Adopt Additional Space
Management Practices........................................................................................ 28
Recommendations............................................................................................... 30
vii
Table of Contents (concl’d)
Page
Tables
Table 1: Arizona’s Public Universities
Space Inventory
Fall 1996................................................................................... 2
Table 2: Arizona’s Public Universities
Classroom Use
Fall 1996................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Arizona’s Public Universities
Analysis of Classroom Space Needs
Fall 1996................................................................................... 11
viii
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of space utilization
at Arizona’s universities. This audit was conducted pursuant to a June 10, 1996, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, and is the first in a series of four performance
audits of the universities performed in response to the requirements of A.R.S. §41-2958.
Arizona’s three universities operate under the governance of the Arizona Board of Regents.
Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe is the largest, with 42,463 students enrolled as
of fall 1996. The University of Arizona (UA) in Tucson had 33,504 students during the
same semester, and Northern Arizona University (NAU), in Flagstaff, had 19,605 students
enrolled. State appropriations to the universities’ main campuses for fiscal year 1997-1998
were over $745.7 million. Of this amount, the Legislature appropriated $314.6 million to
ASU, $305.7 million to UA, and $125.4 million to NAU.
Arizona’s Universities
Support Large Campuses
Arizona’s three universities maintain extensive physical facilities. Their campuses
comprise over 23 million gross square feet of space with an estimated replacement value
of over $3.5 billion.1 This includes classrooms and laboratories, offices for faculty and
administrative staff, residence halls, athletic facilities, dining halls, and student recreation
centers. Table 1 (see page 2), provides information on the total acreage, gross square
footage, and total assignable space (excludes walls, hallways, restrooms, etc.) available at
each university’s main campus and ASU West.
In order to maintain, renovate, and expand their campuses, the universities annually
develop five-year plans detailing proposed capital projects. The Capital Improvement
Plans (CIP) contain information about new construction projects, building renovations, and
infrastructure improvements, as well as cost estimates and funding sources for these
projects. The universities’ 1999-2003 CIPs include projects totaling more than $745 million.
The universities fund their plans through general fund appropriations, bond proceeds,
grant monies, and donations. In 1996, the Legislature approved over $245 million in new
bonding authority for the university system, which will fund numerous capital projects.
The university system last received bonding authority in 1988 and only a small portion of
the authorized bonds remain unissued. Thus, many projects have remained on the five-year
plans as ideas only.
1 The universities determine estimated replacement values using construction cost guidelines developed for
the Board of Regents by a private consultant.
2
Table 1
Arizona’s Public Universities 1
Space Inventory
Fall 1996
ASU ASU
West
NAU UA 2
Acreage 763 300 738 671
Gross square footage 8,032,935 600,870 4,193,786 8,294,482
Net assignable space 3
Classrooms 352,813 54,581 161,827 267,919
Classroom laboratories 438,713 11,778 150,011 365,621
Research laboratories 484,045 12,794 76,901 673,324
Libraries 300,795 50,612 153,546 342,355
Offices 1,178,949 120,587 386,505 1,181,239
Residence halls 1,080,025 0 964,866 672,809
Other 4 1,316,088 66,074 901,022 1,110,156
Total assignable space 5,151,428 316,426 2,794,678 4,613,423
1 Main campuses only.
2 Does not include UA’s College of Medicine.
3 Refers to all space that can be used for instruction and other purposes. It does not include space such as walls,
hallways, and restrooms.
4 Includes athletic areas, health care facilities, lounges, recreation facilities, and other space that does not fit into
any of the other categories.
Source: Arizona Board of Regents’ 1997 Annual Space Inventory and Utilization Report and 1996 Building
Inventory Report.
Universities’ Space
Subject to an External Review
In recent months, the issue of space management has come under greater scrutiny. In 1996,
both the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) and the Office of Management and
3
Budget (OMB) staffs expressed concerns with the universities’ plans to spend monies
generated by the Board of Regents’ new bonding authority. Both offices requested
additional information, including the current utilization of university facilities, in order
to recommend approval of the plans.
In October 1996, the Arizona Board of Regents requested a private sector review of the
universities’ capital development process. The Committee for External Review of
University Capital Assets (Committee) was subsequently formed. At the Board’s request,
the Committee toured each campus and reviewed several topics related to the universities’
capital assets, including bonding and the universities’ debt capacity, the capital
development process, future enrollment growth projections, deferred maintenance, and
the use of existing university space.
After three months of study, the Committee presented 28 recommendations to the Board
of Regents. According to the Committee, implementing these recommendations will
require the commitment of substantial Board and university resources. For example, the
Committee recommended that the Board:
n Prioritize major capital projects on a system-wide level rather than by each campus;
n Spend more time reviewing proposed construction and renovation projects prior to
granting project initiation approval;
n In conjunction with OMB and JLBC staff, review the current building renewal formula;
and
n Hire an outside consulting firm to review deferred maintenance needs at each
university.
In addition to these areas, the committee also expressed concerns with the use of existing
university facilities. Specifically, the Committee focused on improving the utilization of
classrooms, recommending a follow-up review in order to identify methods to increase
classroom use.
Since receiving the Committee’s report, the Board has taken steps to implement many of
the Committee’s recommendations. For example, the Board submitted a revised, more
comprehensive plan for the use of bond monies, required additional information from the
universities in their Capital Improvement Plans, and hired a consultant to review deferred
maintenance needs. Regarding the utilization of space, the Board established a follow-up
work group, including four members of the Committee, to review the Board’s guidelines
for the use of space and identify ways to increase classroom use.
4
Space Management
Differs at Each University
Space management plays an important role at a university, helping to ensure that all
capital assets are effectively and efficiently used. The substantial resources that have been
invested in university facilities, and campus size and complexity, make space management
a particularly important facet of university management. Each university currently
manages the use and allocation of its capital assets differently.
n At ASU, the seven full-time equivalent staff in the Academic Facilities unit provide
oversight for the university’s space. The unit’s responsibilities include scheduling
classes into classrooms each semester and preparing classroom utilization reports,
maintaining an inventory of all rooms on campus, and reviewing departments’
requests for additional space.
n At NAU, one employee dedicates half her time to space management functions.
Previously, NAU maintained a space management department with four full-time staff.
However, the university reduced this function in 1993 in order to streamline its
administrative structure. Currently, NAU’s activities are limited to maintaining records
regarding current space, and providing minimal assistance to departments requesting
space. At NAU, academic departments schedule their classes into classrooms allocated
specifically for their use.
n At UA, the 10-person Office of Space Management performs certain space management
functions. This group maintains an inventory of current space and prepares utilization
and space management reports. The unit also performs other duties, including the
university’s acquisition, sales, and leasing functions. In addition to this unit, the
University also uses a Space Committee, comprised of faculty and administrators,
which performs several functions, including assigning space to departments and
assisting departments in better managing their existing space. Four staff within the
Registrar’s office schedule classes into classrooms at UA.
Scope and Methodology
This audit focuses on how the universities can better manage the existing space on their
main campuses. Aspects of space management reviewed include the universities’ efforts
to monitor allocations of space to individual departments, classroom scheduling practices,
and the extent to which classroom space is used. Further, the audit team reviewed in more
depth how much the universities are using classrooms equipped with instructional
technology.
ASU West and ASU East were not included in this audit due to time and resource
constraints, which were compounded by the distinct differences in the use and
5
management of space at these facilities versus the main campuses. These campuses will
be reviewed in other upcoming performance audits of the universities.
Several methods were used to address the issues in this audit, including:
n Interviewing faculty, staff, and administrators at all three universities and the Arizona
Board of Regents regarding classroom scheduling and space management practices and
the use of instructional technology in classrooms;
n Analyzing space utilization reports and figures that the Board of Regents and the
universities provided and conducting an analysis of classrooms equipped with
instructional technology;
n Conducting site visits to verify the presence and use of instructional technology
equipment in selected classrooms, and to perform limited test work on inventory
records;
n Attending 8 meetings of the Committee for External Review of University Assets and
the follow-up Work Group on Space Utilization; and
n Interviewing officials from 12 other universities to document their classroom
scheduling and space management practices.1
This report presents findings and recommendations in four areas regarding the need for
Arizona’s universities to:
n Increase the utilization of existing classroom space and recommend revisions to the
Board of Regents’ current classroom utilization guidelines;
n Increase the utilization of classrooms equipped with instructional technology;
n Improve their classroom scheduling functions through increased centralization and
automation; and
n Expand their current space management efforts by improving their space data,
reviewing existing space guidelines, and implementing additional space management
1 The following universities were contacted: University of California at Berkeley and Los Angeles, University
of Florida at Gainesville, University of Wisconsin at Madison, University of Texas at Austin, Texas A & M
University, University of Washington, California State University at Fresno, Bowling Green State
University, Ohio University at Athens, George Mason University, and Old Dominion University. Selection
criteria included size, Carnegie classification, land grant history, peer status, and Arizona universities’
recommendations.
6
practices.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the administration, staff, and faculty
at ASU, NAU, UA, and the Arizona Board of Regents, and the Committee for External
Review of Capital Assets for their cooperation and assistance throughout the audit.
7
FINDING I
UNIVERSITIES NEED TO IMPROVE
CLASSROOM UTILIZATION
Arizona’s universities should take steps to increase the use of their existing classroom
space. On average, each university schedules classes in their classrooms less than 60
percent of the day, and classrooms are used significantly less during evening hours.
Further, no university meets the State’s guidelines for classroom use, but even if they did,
these guidelines may not ensure classrooms are adequately used. By adopting stricter
guidelines and increasing classroom use, the universities can serve more students, convert
ineffective classrooms to other needed uses, or possibly avoid construction of classroom
space.
Universities Do Not Meet
Classroom Use Guidelines
Arizona’s universities can improve their use of classroom space. Each university does not
meet the Board of Regents’ (Board) guidelines for the number of classes that should be
scheduled in rooms and the percentage of seats that should be occupied within these
classes. Additionally, the universities significantly underutilize classrooms at certain times
during the day.
Classroom utilization low—Although ASU’s, NAU’s, and UA’s utilization rates differ, all
fail to meet the Board’s guidelines in at least one aspect. Classroom use is generally
measured by the average number of hours classes are scheduled per week and the average
number of seats occupied during these classes. In 1993, the Arizona Board of Regents
adopted guidelines for classroom use based on those developed by the Council for
Educational Facilities Planners, International, an organization representing elementary,
secondary, and postsecondary educational facility planners. The Board’s guidelines state
that classes should be scheduled in classrooms at least 30 of the 50 hours available per
week between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, or 60 percent of the hours
available. Additionally, a minimum of 60 percent of the seats should be filled within these
classes, resulting in 36 percent of seats filled weekly. As can be seen in Table 2 (see page
8), no university meets the first standard, and NAU also fails to meet the second.
The classroom use represented in Table 2 represents average use for all classrooms; the
universities use some classrooms considerably more than 30 hours per week, and use
others only a few hours per week. UA annually publishes utilization information for each
classroom on campus. While certain rooms at UA are heavily used, the University
8
schedules fewer than 10 hours of instruction in 18 classrooms. Only 2 classes, for a total of
6 hours per week, were offered in one 30-seat classroom in UA’s Education building
during the fall 1996 semester. Additionally, only one class, for 3 hours per week, was
offered in a 75-seat classroom in the Nursing building.
Table 2
Arizona’s Public Universities
Classroom Use
Fall 1996
Hours
Per Week
Between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Percentage of
Seats Filled
Arizona Board of
Regents’ guidelines 30 60%
UA 25 64
NAU 26 51
ASU 28 62
Source: The Arizona Board of Regents’ 1997 Annual Space Inventory and Utilization Report.
Classroom use varies by hour—The universities use their classrooms significantly less in the
early mornings, late afternoons, and on Friday afternoons. For example, in the fall 1996
semester, ASU scheduled classes in fewer than 30 percent of its rooms between 7:00 and
8:00 a.m. on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Similarly, NAU scheduled classes in fewer
than 40 percent of its classrooms before 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday and Thursday. In contrast,
during the peak hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., these universities often use more than 80
percent of their classrooms.
Classroom use further diminishes after 5:00 p.m. and on the weekends, time periods which
are not included in the classroom use guidelines. ASU, NAU, and UA use, on average, 20
percent, 12 percent, and 16 percent of their classrooms between 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, respectively. Further, each university uses between 2 and 6
percent of its classrooms on Saturday between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.
To increase use at off-peak times, universities can implement policies designed to
distribute their classes more evenly throughout the day. UA prohibits its departments from
9
scheduling more than 7 percent of their classes in any time slot. Additionally, the College
of Social and Behavioral Sciences at NAU restricts departments from offering more than
35 percent of their classes between 9:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Other universities have similar
rules. For example, the University of California at Berkeley restricts departments to
scheduling only 70 percent of their classes between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The University
of Texas at Austin allows departments to use only a certain number of classrooms each
hour based on how many classes the department offers compared to the total number of
classes offered by the university. Ohio University at Athens requires departments to
schedule 15 percent of their regular undergraduate classes at either 8:00 a.m. or 12:00 p.m.
Another 15 percent must be scheduled at or after 3:00 p.m., and 15 percent must meet on
Friday.
Additional classroom use not documented—The universities’ current utilization figures may
not reflect the total classroom usage at each university. In addition to regularly scheduled
for-credit classes, each university uses classrooms for other events, such as study and
review sessions, faculty meetings, and student meetings. According to the universities,
these events are important aspects of learning and should not be curtailed by increased use
of classrooms for regular classes. However, the extent classrooms are used for these
activities is not known because the universities do not regularly collect and report
utilization data for these events. The only information available regarding the use of
classrooms for other events is a 1990 ASU study which concluded that special events used
approximately 4 percent of available classroom time, or three hours per week in each
classroom.
The Board of Regents’ Guidelines
Need to Be Revised
Arizona’s guidelines, while similar to other states, fail to encourage sufficient use of
classroom space. Further, because the guidelines define rooms as “fully utilized” at a
relatively low usage level, they may lead the universities to overestimate classroom space
shortages.
The Board’s guidelines should be strengthened—While the majority of states with guidelines
require levels of classroom use similar to Arizona’s, a few states have adopted stricter
standards and/or include evening usage. Since 1970, California recommended universities
use their classrooms 75 percent of the time, including both day and evening hours.
However, in 1990, California determined that while this use was too low for day use, it
was not reasonable to expect this level of use in the evening and recommended revising
the guidelines. The University of California system now recommends using classrooms at
different rates depending on the time of day. Thus, between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.,
classrooms should be used 80 percent of the time. The rest of the day, from 12:00 p.m. to
5:00 p.m., classrooms should be in use 64 percent of the time. Finally, during the evening,
classrooms should be used 40 percent of the available time.
Also using higher standards, Utah recommends that its universities schedule classes 75
10
percent of the time out of a possible 45 hours, but allows the universities to determine
which 45 hours out of the week to schedule. Virginia and Texas also include evening usage
in their guidelines. Further, California, Utah, and Texas also recommend filling more seats
than Arizona, between 66 and 71.4 percent, compared to the 60 percent Arizona
recommends.
However, if evening use were added to actual day use for Arizona’s universities, NAU
and UA still do not meet the Board’s standard, much less those of Texas, Utah, California,
and Virginia. When evening hours are included, ASU, NAU, and UA used their
classrooms 33, 29, and 29 hours a week, respectively. In contrast, in Virginia, where a
higher standard is in effect, several universities use their classrooms more often. In fall
1996, 8 of Virginia’s universities used their classrooms more than 33 hours per week (the
highest use in Arizona). In fact, Virginia’s George Mason University used its classrooms
44 hours per week.
Several people in Arizona also believe the current guidelines warrant revision. During a
September 1996 Board of Regents meeting, some regents expressed concern with the
guidelines. One regent stated that the 60 percent classroom use standard was too low and
that the universities should consider increasing it to 80 percent. Another regent also felt
the current guidelines were outdated and new ones should be developed that
encompassed day, evening, and weekend use. It was during this meeting that the regents
decided to seek a private sector review of space issues at the universities. The resulting
Committee for External Review of University Capital Assets (Committee), after three
months of study, concluded that classroom use can and must be improved at all three
institutions. The Committee felt that the Board’s guidelines appear to be an average of
utilization rates nationally and not a goal the universities should be striving to attain.
Guidelines impact need for classroom space—The Board’s guidelines may result in the
universities overestimating their need for additional classroom space. Classroom
utilization guidelines, in addition to setting standards for the use of space, are used in a
formula to determine the amount of classroom space needed at each campus. Arizona’s
classroom usage guidelines, when calculated together with a standard student station size,
show that one square foot of space is needed for each weekly student contact hour. In other
words, for every student credit hour occurring at one of the campuses, one square foot of
classroom space should be available. Based on these guidelines, each university reports a
shortage of classroom space on its main campus.
However, if stricter guidelines were used in the formula, the universities could reduce or
eliminate the reported shortage of classroom space. For instance, if a guideline requiring
using classrooms five more hours per week and filling 5 percent more seats but allowing
one more square foot per student was applied to all classroom space, the universities
would greatly reduce the space shortage. As shown in Table 3 (see page 11), if the Board
adopts these stricter guidelines, ASU and NAU would have more than enough classroom
space, and UA’s shortage would be almost eliminated.
11
Table 3
Arizona’s Public Universities 1
Analysis of Classroom Space Needs
Fall 1996
ASU NAU UA2
Based on current Arizona guidelines
Existing classroom space 352,813 161,827 267,919
Estimated space needs 378,638 166,274 324,091
Surplus/Shortage of space (25,825) (4,447) (56,172)
Based on use of stricter guidelines
Existing classroom space 352,813 161,827 267,919
Estimated space needs 318,056 139,670 272,236
Surplus/Shortage of space 34,757 22,157 (4,317)
1 Main campus only.
2 Does not include UA’s College of Medicine.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of Arizona Board of Regents’ 1997 Annual Space Inventory and Utilization
Report.
Universities Should
Improve Classroom Use
As their statistics show, Arizona’s universities can more effectively use their existing
classroom space. Increased classroom use will allow the universities to serve more
students, reduce space shortages in other areas, or even prevent or delay the construction
of new classroom space. The universities are currently reviewing their guidelines and
discussing ways to increase classroom use. However, the Board of Regents should hold the
universities more accountable for increasing classroom use, including requiring them to
either meet use standards or justify lower use before new classroom construction is
approved.
Improved classroom use will lead to additional benefits—All three universities can derive
several benefits from increased use of their classroom space. By increasing classroom use,
the universities could serve more students or possibly convert ineffective classrooms into
other types of space. With expected future enrollment increases, it is possible that more
students could be accommodated on the main campuses. However, in the immediate
future, reducing the number of classrooms may provide other benefits. Both ASU and UA
12
plan to renovate older classrooms into other types of space when new classrooms are
opened in planned buildings, but this will not decrease the total number of classrooms
available. Some existing classrooms, possibly those unable to accommodate new
instructional technologies, could be renovated for alternate uses. Further, the universities
may be able to prevent or delay construction of new classroom space through increased
use of existing classrooms.
The Board should ensure classroom use increases—Recognizing these benefits, and in
response to the External Review Committee’s recommendations, the Board of Regents
formed a follow-up group charged with developing new space standards. The resulting
Work Group on Space Utilization, comprised of four members of the original committee
and space management officials from each university, is also discussing ways to increase
classroom use. The Work Group is developing new classroom use guidelines for the fall
semester of 1999 and then stricter guidelines for fall 2000. For instance, regular classrooms
should be used 32 hours per week by 1999 and 35 hours per week by 2000. The Work
Group will present its recommendations to the Board of Regents in October.
Once the Work Group presents its report, the Board of Regents should take steps to ensure
the universities increase classroom use. Currently, the Board does not hold the universities
accountable for meeting the existing classroom utilization guidelines. The Board should
strongly consider adopting the Work Group’s recommendations for new classroom
utilization guidelines, and require that the universities increase classroom use to meet
these guidelines.
The Board could also require the guidelines to be met before authorizing new classroom
construction. Virginia requires universities to meet its standards for classroom use prior
to authorizing construction of new classroom space. In its 1997 Guidelines for Higher
Education Fixed Assets, Virginia’s State Council for Higher Education states that
“institutions still must use their classrooms or class laboratories in excess of the Council’s
utilization guidelines for average hours of weekly use in order to justify the need for
additional instructional space to the Council.”
13
Recommendations
1. Arizona’s universities, in conjunction with the Work Group on Space Utilization,
should continue their work developing new classroom utilization standards. The
universities should also consider expanding the guidelines to include evening usage.
2. The Arizona Board of Regents should consider adopting new standards that the Work
Group recommends.
3. Arizona’s universities should increase the use of their classroom space in order to meet
the current guidelines and any new guidelines adopted by the Arizona Board of
Regents.
4. Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University should consider developing
university-wide policies to distribute class times more evenly throughout the day.
5. The Arizona Board of Regents should hold the universities accountable for meeting the
classroom use guidelines. Further, the Board should consider how the universities are
utilizing space when reviewing their requests for classroom construction.
6. To better document all uses of classroom space, Arizona’s universities should track and
quantify classroom use for all events other than scheduled classes.
14
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
15
FINDING II
UTILIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED
CLASSROOMS CAN BE IMPROVED
As Arizona’s universities take steps to increase classroom use, they should focus more on
some of the most expensive rooms, those equipped with instructional technology.
Computers, laser disc players, and in-class Internet access installed into classrooms can
augment traditional instruction techniques. Each university maintains several classrooms
equipped with this technology, but these rooms sit empty for much of the day. Several
factors may contribute to underutilization, including inefficient classroom scheduling
practices, limited uses for certain equipment, and equipment security problems. In
addition to using their existing classrooms more often, the universities need to determine
instructional technology’s effectiveness and appropriateness.
Instructional Technology
Enhances Classrooms
at Higher Cost
Classroom instructional technology enables instructors to present class materials to
students in a variety of ways. Computers, laser disc players, projectors that make the
instructor’s computer screen visible to the entire class, and access to the Internet in the
classroom are all examples of classroom instructional technology. For instance, auditors
watched an introductory science course in which a computer program was used to inform
students how many earthquakes had occurred in any given country in the last year. Also,
in addition to a traditional lecture in an astronomy class, the instructor showed a short
movie from a laser disc depicting the process of a supernova and an image taken from the
Internet that depicted an exploding star.
However, classrooms equipped with instructional technology cost more than traditional
classrooms. These classrooms may require special seating arrangements, raised flooring
to accommodate computer wiring, and additional maintenance costs. According to the
Board of Regents Construction Cost Control Guidelines, constructing these types of
classrooms can cost nearly twice as much per square foot as traditional classrooms and
lecture halls. Further, it can cost up to $20,000 to equip an instructional technology lecture
hall with an instructor computer and a projector.
In addition to the 70 existing classrooms and labs that contain at least a computer for the
instructor, each university plans to add more instructional technology equipment. For
example, all 33 classrooms in ASU’s planned $35.5 million Mediated Classroom Building
16
will be equipped with instructional technology costing $3.3 million. In addition, UA’s
planned $20 million Integrated Instructional Facility building also will include classrooms
enhanced with instructional technology.
Instructional Technology
Underused
Although instructional technology classrooms and laboratories are costly, universities
currently underutilize existing space. On average, classes are offered less than 50 percent
of the day in instructional technology classrooms and laboratories. This use falls below the
State’s standard for all classrooms.
Technology-equipped classrooms underutilized—Each university underutilizes classrooms
equipped with instructional technology. For the purposes of this audit, classrooms and
instructional labs reviewed were those rooms that contained a minimum of a computer for
the instructor to use. In addition to computers, many of these rooms also have projectors
for displaying computer information onto a screen, or Internet access. To determine how
many rooms with these resources exist, UA asked departments to report their instructional
technology resources. Auditors contacted each college at NAU for the same information.
Only ASU could readily provide a list of such rooms. According to these reports and
ASU’s supplied list, Arizona universities maintain 70 instructional technology classrooms
and laboratories. However, this figure underestimates the number of rooms equipped with
some form of technology because many classrooms and labs contain sophisticated
projectors or other equipment, but not a computer. Instead, instructors may bring in
laptops or multi-media carts to use for their classes.
The universities may be scheduling an insufficient number of classes in their classrooms
equipped with at least an instructor computer. The universities report scheduling these 70
rooms, on average, only 45 percent of the time during the fall 1996 semester. Thus, these
rooms were not used for instruction for over 27 hours each week between 7:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. This low use occurred despite numerous faculty and administrators reporting
that they did not have enough of this type of space.
Classroom and lab use below state standard—The universities also failed to meet the
Board’s utilization guidelines for their technology-enhanced classrooms and laboratories.
Of the 70 rooms identified, 45 are classified as classrooms, and 25 rooms at NAU and UA
as computer labs. UA schedules its rooms an average of 27 hours a week, while NAU
schedules its rooms an average of 22 hours a week. Only ASU meets the guidelines,
scheduling its classrooms 30 hours per week. While Finding I (see pages 7 through 13)
recommends implementing a higher utilization standard, due to the expense of equipping
these classrooms, they should be used more often than traditional classrooms.
The universities also maintain several computer laboratories that are used for class
instruction. The Board recommends that class labs be used less often than classrooms since
17
a certain amount of unscheduled time is necessary for students to complete lab
assignments. Class labs that are typically used by disciplines such as business or the social
and physical sciences should be scheduled 22.5 hours per week. Neither NAU nor UA
currently meet this standard; their computer class labs are scheduled 20 hours and 11
hours, respectively. In addition, NAU does not currently meet the standard for class labs
that are typically used by disciplines requiring more lab time, such as engineering and
agriculture. The standard for these class labs is 11.25 hours per week. UA scheduled these
rooms equipped with computers 14 hours per week; however, NAU scheduled their
computer class labs only 4 hours per week.
Several Factors Contribute
to Low Utilization Rates
Several factors may contribute to the universities’ underutilization of technology-enhanced
classrooms. Some of the equipment takes considerable time to set up for class. However,
other problems that are more within the universities’ control, such as how these rooms are
scheduled, may also contribute to lower utilization rates.
n One inherent characteristic of the technology may result in low usage. Since setting up
the equipment for each class may take instructors longer than the allotted 10 to 15
minutes between each class session, classes are often not scheduled back-to-back in
technology-enhanced classrooms and laboratories. Instructors need time to download
information from the Internet, set up laser disc players and projection screens, and
organize their materials before class.
In addition, other factors may be more within the universities’ control.
n Classrooms scheduled inefficiently—University departments may inadequately
schedule classrooms equipped with instructional technology. At both NAU and UA,
individual departments have primary control over classrooms equipped with
instructional technology. These individual departments determine how many courses
will be scheduled in their classrooms, which often results in much lower utilization
rates. However, ASU centrally schedules most of its instructional technology space. As
discussed in Finding III (see pages 21 through 25), classrooms and laboratories
controlled by departments are more difficult to monitor and have lower utilization
rates. Departments may schedule fewer classes in these enhanced classrooms because
they consider only their own department’s requests for space.
n Some faculty resistant to technology—Some faculty members interviewed during
the audit expressed resistance to incorporating technology into their lectures. These
faculty members felt that using laser discs and computers in the classroom would not
18
affect student learning. In addition, some faculty indicated that preparing their
curricula for instructional technology lectures takes considerable time. Further, while
each university provides training on this equipment, this training may require
considerable time.
n Staff needed to oversee instructional technology—Instructional technology, which
can be easily damaged, often requires staff to operate and maintain the equipment and
ensure that it is kept safe. Staff may not be available to support additional classes.
Universities Need to Increase
Use of Technology-Enhanced
Classrooms
Arizona’s universities need to take steps to ensure technology-equipped classrooms are
more extensively used. To ensure these rooms are adequately used, the universities need
to first identify the instructional technology that is currently available in their classrooms.
In addition, the universities should determine the effectiveness of this technology and how
much more is needed before they invest in additional technology-equipped classrooms.
Universities need to better track classrooms equipped with instructional technology—In order
to increase the use of these classrooms, the universities first must be able to identify
classrooms equipped with instructional technology. Without this information, it is difficult
to effectively manage or monitor this space. During the audit UA and NAU did not
maintain complete information on the instructional technology in their classrooms;
specifically, they could not identify which rooms were equipped with at least an instructor
computer. ASU, however, tracks this information. Due to its knowledge of which
classrooms include technology, ASU can monitor their use and take steps to increase the
use of certain classrooms. For example, in one classroom, the computers equipped with an
unpopular operating system are being replaced by computers requested more often. The
less-used computers will be consolidated with other computers and placed in another
classroom.
However, several recent initiatives should provide more information on the extent and use
of these resources. First, NAU, after the spring 1997 semester, identified the technology
available in each classroom on its campus. Further, as part of its review of classroom use,
the Work Group on Space Utilization is looking at how the universities define and track
instructional technology resources. Currently, the universities report one utilization rate
for all classrooms to the Board of Regents. However, the Work Group is considering
whether the universities should separately identify and report utilization for different
types of classrooms, such as traditional classrooms and computer classrooms.
Additional study needed—In addition to increasing the use of existing enhanced
classrooms, the universities need to determine what additional technology resources are
needed and for what purposes. ASU has recently hired a consultant to determine both the
type and amount of classrooms the ASU campus will need in the future, including those
19
equipped with instructional technology. In addition, if the universities begin determining
utilization of classrooms by type, including those equipped with instructional technology,
they will be able to determine if their current mix of classroom space is appropriate.
Further study is also needed to determine the effectiveness of instructional technology on
learning. Some experts argue that there is little research to demonstrate whether or not
instructional technology is actually an effective tool. In addition, the issue of technological
flexibility is also a critical component. Technology is constantly changing and evolving.
Experts argue that universities need to have the ability to reconfigure classrooms as new
technologies develop; they should not become restricted to one type of technology. UA has
recently applied for a federal grant to study the effectiveness of instructional technology
in the classroom setting. The university plans to study this issue over the next five years
and will evaluate the current use of technology in the classroom and determine its
effectiveness for several different disciplines.
Recommendations
1. Arizona universities need to better identify and track the amount of instructional
technology currently available on their campuses.
2. Once identified, the universities need to ensure that these rooms are more highly
utilized.
3. Arizona universities should continue to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness
of instructional technology.
20
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
21
FINDING III
IMPROVED SCHEDULING PROCESSES
COULD ENHANCE UTILIZATION
OF CLASSROOM SPACE
The universities should schedule more classes through central offices and expand their use
of computer scheduling programs. Currently each university schedules classrooms
differently. However, all three could increase classroom use, make it easier for academic
departments to share needed classrooms, provide better information to university
management, and facilitate the scheduling of special events by shifting more classroom
scheduling responsibilities from departments to central offices. Additionally, the
universities could further enhance their scheduling processes by expanding the use of
computer programs to develop classroom schedules.
Classroom Scheduling Process
Differs at Each University
The universities’ approaches to scheduling classes and events into classrooms vary.
n At NAU, central administration does not schedule any of its 191 classrooms. Rather,
individual colleges set the schedules for the classrooms in their buildings. Faculty
opposed two initiatives in the past 6 years to centralize NAU’s classroom scheduling
function. However, NAU recently purchased schedule 25, a classroom scheduling
software program, which will lead to centralized and computerized classroom
scheduling in the future.
n At UA, the Registrar’s office officially schedules classes and special events into 206 of
their 324 classrooms using Schedule 25. The remaining 118 classrooms are scheduled
by departments, colleges, or other units.
n At ASU, the Academic Facilities office manually schedules classes and special events
in almost all of the campus’ 327 classrooms with limited assistance from a computer
program. However, 42 classrooms are completely or partially controlled by other units,
most notably the Law School and Master of Business Administration program.
22
Additionally, all three universities allow academic departments and colleges to control
instructional laboratories and to determine which classes will be offered and at what time.
Scheduling More Classes
through Central Offices Will
Improve Classroom Use
Arizona’s universities should more fully centralize their classroom scheduling functions.
Centralized scheduling offers many advantages, including increased classroom use. At the
same time, potential problems can be avoided through careful implementation and stricter
oversight of rooms remaining under department and college control.
Centralized scheduling offers numerous advantages—Authorizing central administrative
offices to schedule classes and events into classrooms offers numerous benefits. A central
scheduling function produces higher classroom utilization rates, makes it easier for
multiple academic departments to share needed classrooms, produces better information
for managing space, and provides a central point of contact.
n Better utilization—Classrooms controlled by central offices tend to be used more often
than those controlled by departments and colleges. During the fall of 1996, classes were
scheduled in classrooms controlled by UA’s Registrar’s Office an average of 29 hours
per week. In contrast, academic departments and colleges scheduled classes an average
of only 18 hours per week in their classrooms. Similarly, ASU reports that for the same
period, classrooms controlled by Academic Facilities were scheduled for an average of
29 hours of classes per week, while locally controlled rooms were only scheduled for
21 hours of classes per week.
n Effective sharing—Although the universities encourage departments and colleges to
share use of the rooms that they control, some classrooms remain underutilized. For
example, ASU’s Law School controls a large room, the Great Hall, which seats 400
people. During the fall 1996 semester, classes were scheduled only 2 hours per week
in this room. At the same time, Academic Facilities was unable to fill approximately 25
requests for large lecture halls. Consequently, the requesting departments were forced
to change their class offerings to match available rooms.
Additionally, some colleges and departments circumvent the policies that encourage
them to share rooms with other units. The auditors identified several departments at
UA that effectively control classrooms, contrary to university policy. For example, the
Civil Engineering and Finance departments wrote letters to the Registrar’s office
requesting that the Registrar’s office not schedule any other departments’ events or
classes into certain classrooms because they wanted to schedule their own special
events into those rooms. The Registrar’s office complied with the requests, allowing the
23
departments to effectively control these rooms. In one such room, the department
scheduled only nine hours of classes per week during the fall 1996 semester.
n More accurate information for managing space—Departmental control of
classrooms may also contribute to inaccurate information on classroom use. For
example, auditors identified several cases where UA’s Registrar’s office records
regarding use of departmentally controlled classrooms differed from the records the
departments maintained. For example, the Civil Engineering Department’s records
showed a class as having been held on a different day than the Registrar’s records
showed.
n Improved scheduling of special events—Finally, a central classroom scheduling
office provides a single point of contact. University staff, faculty, and students would
only have to telephone one office to request a classroom for meetings or special events.
In contrast, finding an available classroom under a decentralized system could involve
calling dozens of offices, which may control only a few classrooms each.
Careful implementation of centralization can avoid problems—Although centralizing the
classroom scheduling function provides many benefits, it should be carefully implemented
to avoid potential problems. First, some faculty and staff have voiced concerns that they
would be assigned to teach in inappropriate classrooms. However, a central scheduling
office can use a computer program that is specifically designed to match faculty needs to
appropriate classrooms, as discussed later in this finding. Second, certain classrooms may
be more appropriately controlled by departments or colleges. For instance, some rooms
equipped with specialized equipment can only be used by certain disciplines. Therefore,
the universities will need to develop a formal process to consider department and college
requests for exceptions to centralization. However, departments or colleges that retain
control of rooms should be required to regularly justify this arrangement.
Other universities successfully schedule classrooms through a central office—Other
universities have increased utilization rates and reaped other benefits by centralizing
classroom scheduling. For example, Old Dominion University reported that it has
“dramatically improved” its classroom utilization rates by moving to centralized
scheduling using a computer scheduling program. Similarly, the Ohio University at
Athens has found that centrally scheduled classrooms are used more than locally
controlled rooms. Eleven of the 12 universities contacted for this audit control most of their
classrooms through centralized offices.
24
Computerized Scheduling Improves
Efficiency and Effectiveness
In addition to scheduling more classes through central offices, the universities can improve
operations by further automating the classroom scheduling process. The universities are
already studying some aspects of automation. However, each could realize additional
benefits, such as increased efficiency, by adopting or improving its use of computerized
classroom scheduling programs.
Universities considering additional automation—Although the universities currently use
a variety of approaches, they are considering the extent to which they should use computer
programs to develop classroom schedules. ASU is considering whether they should fully
automate their scheduling functions, and NAU recently purchased a computerized
scheduling program. Similarly, the Committee for External Review of University Assets
recommended that the universities centralize their scheduling function and fully adopt a
computerized scheduling program.
While UA already uses Schedule 25, a computerized scheduling program, its staff are
working to identify ways to more effectively use the program. They have found that many
problems may be related to how UA uses its automated scheduling program, rather than
problems with the program itself. For example, the program is used to place only a
minority of classroom requests. The majority of requests are still manually scheduled in
response to department pressure and other factors. Further, UA may not be using all of
Schedule 25’s features. The Registrar’s office is considering purchasing an auxiliary
computer program that will work with the existing system to further improve this process.
Using computer programs to schedule classrooms offers advantages—Using a computer
program to schedule classes into classrooms provides several benefits over manual
methods. Experts generally praise computerized scheduling for its efficiency. The leading
computer programs, for example, can generate an entire university’s classroom schedule
in minutes once they have been fully programmed and room requests have been entered.
Additionally, computer programs help universities to quickly find new locations for
existing classes if a classroom must be unexpectedly closed. Further, computer programs
may produce more efficient schedules, resulting in higher classroom utilization rates.
Finally, using scheduling programs forces university administrators to carefully consider
their space policies. Computer software should be programmed to consider priorities and
other factors when scheduling competing needs. Therefore, administrators must
consciously consider and articulate their space policies and priorities when setting up these
programs.
25
Recommendations
1. The universities should, as a general practice, centrally schedule classrooms.
2. The universities should develop formal processes to consider department or college
requests to exempt specific rooms from central control. Departments and colleges
should be required to regularly justify all classroom space that remains under their
control to ensure that it continues to be used in the universities’ best interests.
3. The University of Arizona should continue to study ways to improve its automated
scheduling process. For example, the University should consider whether it can reduce
the number of manually scheduled classes and special events.
4. Arizona State University should consider fully automating their classroom scheduling
processes. Northern Arizona University should monitor the implementation of their
automated scheduling software to avoid the problems experienced by the University
of Arizona.
26
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
27
FINDING IV
UNIVERSITIES SHOULD FULLY
IMPLEMENT BEST PRACTICES
IN SPACE MANAGEMENT
Arizona’s universities should strengthen their space management practices to ensure the
efficient use of existing university facilities. First, NAU needs to take steps to ensure that its
space inventory records are complete and accurate. Second, the Board of Regents and the
universities should review and possibly revise the guidelines currently used to calculate how
much space each university needs. Finally, the universities can implement comprehensive
space management practices recommended by experts and other universities.
NAU Needs to Improve
Its Room Inventory Data
As a part of space management, experts agree that space inventories provide universities
with critical baseline information. According to some experts, “The key to properly
analyzing the existing physical facilities of any institution of higher learning is the
establishment of an inventory system containing the proper data . . . “1 Further, for an
inventory to be useful, it should contain a description of all facilities and their use, indicate
which units are assigned to use each room, and be updated regularly.
Although all three universities maintain inventory databases, NAU does not conduct
regular reviews of its inventory data, and the information in its inventory is less
comprehensive than the other universities’. Both ASU and UA annually review inventory
records by sending printouts to departments for them to review, and having staff and/or
student workers visit rooms to verify their use and characteristics. NAU, however, had not
updated its inventory in five years until instructional space was reviewed in 1997. Further,
in contrast to ASU and UA’s inventory, NAU’s inventory records do not reflect which
department is assigned to each room.
NAU has recently taken steps to improve its space inventory. First, the University used
students to conduct a limited review in the summer of 1997. However, the University does
not plan to complete this physical review regularly and only included instructional space.
Second, NAU will ask departments to review inventory printouts beginning in the 1997-
1998 academic year; however, this will also be limited to instructional space. To ensure the
1 Bareither, Harlan D., and Jerry L. Schillinger. University Space Planning. Illinois: University of Illinois Press,
1968.
28
accuracy of their inventory, one NAU administrator suggested reviewing the inventory
data while completing the University’s annual maintenance needs review, which involves
physically checking the University’s buildings on a three-year rotation for maintenance
problems.
Space Guidelines
Should Be Reviewed
The universities can also improve their space management activities by reviewing and
possibly revising the guidelines used to identify space needs. In addition to setting
classroom utilization standards as described in Finding I (see pages 7 through 13), the
Board of Regents’ space guidelines help universities determine how much space they need
for faculty and staff offices, research labs, and other space. For example, according to the
guidelines, faculty should be provided 140 square feet of office space, and high-level
administrators 180 square feet of office space. However, just as Finding I concluded that
the classroom use guidelines overestimate classroom space needs, the remaining
guidelines may overestimate universities’ other space needs. Each university reports
significant shortages in several areas, such as research labs and offices, based on these
guidelines. Yet, during ASU’s most recent accreditation review, the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools, a higher education accrediting body, commented on
the generosity of Arizona’s guidelines. Their report stated that “Few institutions meet
these space standards, which are generally regarded as generous; and ASU’s present space
is sufficient and often comfortable for operating the University’s programs.”
The Board and universities, in conjunction with private sector volunteers, are currently
reviewing the existing guidelines. During its review of space issues, the Committee for
External Review of University Capital Assets (Committee) concluded that Arizona’s
guidelines need revision. Although the Committee focused on the classroom guidelines,
it also noted that the universities report significant demand for office, laboratory, and
research space, and thus, these guidelines also deserve attention. The follow-up committee,
the Work Group on Space Utilization, plans to recommend changes to the guidelines by
the fall of 1997.
Universities Should
Adopt Additional Space
Management Practices
The universities could also improve their efforts to monitor space utilization by expanding
their current limited practices. Specifically, each university could adopt additional space
management tools.
Universities provide ad-hoc space management—The universities’ space management
29
practices are limited. NAU reduced its space management unit in 1993 from 4 FTE to .5
FTE and currently provides only minimal assistance to departments requesting space. As
mentioned earlier, ASU and UA conduct an annual physical inspection of all space, but
specifically review whether a particular department has too little or too much space only
when a department requests additional space. This analysis is not currently completed on
a campus-wide or regularly scheduled basis. Similarly, ASU and UA often rely on
anecdotal complaints to identify departments that may be misusing space. As a result, the
universities cannot ensure that current space allocations are equitable and that space is
properly used.
The universities could adopt new practices—In order to strengthen their space management
function, the universities should consider implementing more proactive space
management practices. Experts, other universities, and Arizona’s universities provide
additional suggestions for monitoring and improving space use on campus. For example:
n Comparing space allocations by college or department—While the universities use
their guidelines and inventory to determine campus-wide space needs, this analysis
can be regularly completed to compare space allocations by college or department. This
can help space managers identify units with the most critical space shortages and
surpluses. The space management unit at the University of Wisconsin at Madison
annually compares space by department. ASU’s space management unit is currently
creating a computer program to prepare this type of report.
n Conducting in-depth space audits—Space guidelines, however, offer only one way
to analyze space allocations. Space managers at the University of Wisconsin annually
conduct two to three in-depth audits of certain departments’ use of space each year.
Departments are selected based on an annual comparison of space between
departments or staff judgment. The University’s 1997 audit of its Agricultural and
Applied Economics Department included analysis of the department’s existing space
allocation compared to Wisconsin’s standards, whether the department’s student
enrollment trends supported the current space allocation, and whether the department
was appropriately using office and classroom space. The final report, prepared for the
University’s top management, concluded that the department could relinquish two
floors plus the basement of its building. Although UA currently conducts some space
analyses, its reports consider fewer factors than Wisconsin’s audits and are only
conducted on an ad-hoc basis.
n Allocating space based on productivity factors—Space managers can also use
productivity factors to measure how well space is used, specifically classroom space.
Finding II (see pages 15 through 19), addresses current classroom usage and efforts to
increase utilization. However, universities can subject other types of space to
productivity analysis.
30
The utilization of class laboratories can also be studied to help determine appropriate
allocations. Financial productivity measures that focus on revenues generated or costs
saved for a given space are appropriate for reviewing auxiliary spaces, such as
residence halls or dining facilities, and also research space. Space used for research
purposes directly attracts revenues in the form of grants and contracts. The Council for
Higher Education for Virginia’s 1997 space guidelines include standards for tying
research space to dollars generated through research. The ASU College of Engineering
uses research dollars generated as one criteria for assigning research space. Further,
UA’s science colleges also use a similar measure, looking at graduate students
supervised, research dollars generated, and publications, when reviewing research
space assignments. UA officials are in the process of developing additional
productivity measures more applicable to other disciplines and other types of space.
Recommendations
1. Northern Arizona University should implement procedures to regularly verify all
space in their inventory database.
2. The Arizona Board of Regents and the universities should continue their work
reviewing and possibly altering their existing space guidelines.
3. The universities should take a more proactive approach to space management. As a
part of this effort, they should consider implementing additional space management
practices, such as:
# Comparing space allocations for each college or department;
# Conducting in-depth space audits of selected departments each year in rotation; and
# Allocating space based on productivity factors.
Agency Response
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Response to Auditor General=s Report
The Arizona Board of Regents and Arizona=s universities are pleased to present our response to
the Auditor General=s performance audit of space utilization at Arizona=s universities. We
appreciate the opportunity to respond to the study=s findings.
In general, we concur with the findings and recommendations included in the report. In fact,
several of the recommendations appear to be consistent with work group reports commissioned
by the Regents. As requested, we have responded to each of the report=s recommendations using
the four statements from the cover letter that accompanied the report.
Finding I: Universities Need to Improve Classroom Utilization
Recommendation 1.
Arizona=s universities, in conjunction with the Work Group on Space Utilization, should
continue their work developing new classroom utilization standards. The universities should
also consider expanding the guidelines to include evening usage.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 2.
The Arizona Board of Regents should consider adopting new standards that the Work Group
recommends.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 3:
Arizona=s universities should increase the use of their classroom space in order to meet the
current guidelines and any new guidelines adopted by the Arizona Board of Regents.
Response to the Auditor General=s Report
October 28, 1997
Page 2
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 4:
Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University should consider developing
university-wide policies to distribute class times more evenly throughout the day.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Northern Arizona University is considering moving classes to various sites on the
campus to reduce travel time and increase convenience for students. This would
allow for distributing scheduled classes more evenly throughout the day.
Recommendation 5:
The Arizona Board of Regents should hold the universities accountable for meeting the
classroom use guidelines. Further, the Board should consider how the universities are
utilizing space when reviewing their requests for classroom construction.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 6:
To better document all uses of classroom space, Arizona=s universities should track and
quantify classroom use for all events other than scheduled classes.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Response to the Auditor General=s Report
October 28, 1997
Page 3
Finding II: Utilization of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms Can Be Improved
Recommendation 1:
Arizona universities need to better identify and track the amount of instructional technology
currently available on their campuses.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 2:
Once identified, the universities need to ensure that these rooms are more highly utilized.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 3:
Arizona universities should continue to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of
instructional technology.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Finding III: Improved Scheduling Processes Could Enhance Utilization of Classroom Space
Recommendation 1:
The universities should, as a general practice, centrally schedule classrooms.
Response to the Auditor General=s Report
October 28, 1997
Page 4
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Arizona State University currently schedules more than ninety-five percent of its
classrooms centrally.
Recommendation 2:
The universities should develop formal processes to consider department or college requests
to exempt specific rooms from central control. Departments and colleges should be required
to regularly justify all classroom space that remains under their control to ensure that it
continues to be used in the universities= best interests.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 3:
The University of Arizona should continue to study ways to improve its automated scheduling
process. For example, the University should consider whether it can reduce the number of
manually scheduled classes and special events.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Recommendation 4:
Arizona State University should consider fully automating their classroom scheduling
processes. Northern Arizona University should monitor the implementation of their
automated scheduling software to avoid the problems experienced by the University of
Arizona.
Response to the Auditor General=s Report
October 28, 1997
Page 5
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Arizona State University plans to purchase software that will enable the university
to fully automate classroom scheduling. The new software will be used to schedule
classes for Fall, 1998.
Northern Arizona University agrees that the classroom scheduling process should be
automated. Software for this purpose has been purchased, and it will be
implemented as part of a new student information system. The approximate date
for this implementation is Fall, 1999. The University will monitor implementation
carefully in order to try to avoid problems experienced by the University of Arizona.
Finding IV: Universities Should Fully Implement Best Practices in Space Management
Recommendation 1:
Northern Arizona University should implement procedures to regularly verify all space in their
inventory database.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Northern Arizona University has begun a process of systematic verification of all
space in the inventory database. This work will be continued and updated on a
regular, revolving schedule to ensure the integrity of the data contained in the
database for reporting purposes and internal use.
Recommendation 2:
The Arizona Board of Regents and the universities should continue their work reviewing and
possibly altering their existing space guidelines.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
Response to the Auditor General=s Report
October 28, 1997
Page 6
Recommendation 3:
The universities should take a more proactive approach to space management. As a part of
this effort, they should consider implementing additional space management practices, such as:
· Comparing space allocations for each college or department;
· Conducting more in-depth space audits of selected departments each year in rotation; and
· Allocating space based on productivity factors.
Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.